Talk:Nix v. Hedden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Nix v. Hedden was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
June 29, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 3, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

old comments[edit]

Just occured to me: what laws were applied here? I'm not sure! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely the tariff law that the importer was trying to avoid, no? This link is Broken 15:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From a quick look a the cases cited, I believe it was the Tariff Act, 1883, (March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 488, 189, c. 121), which apparently imposed a 10% ad valorem customs duty on vegetables but not fruits. But you will need to check :)
It would also be helpful to add some discussion of the previous cases mentioned in the full judgement, regarding walnuts as nuts not seeds and beans as vegetables not seeds. -- ALoan (Talk) 28 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Possible addition[edit]

There's a story that Reagan classified catsup/ketchup as a vegetable for purposes of school lunches. It may not be true, but it could definitely go in the article. This is the best source I could find on it, but I'm not sure it's credible. And as I said in the edit summary, since the "people have been enjoying tomatas since Dickens" quote is pretty irrelevant, I won't object if you want to take it out. Happy editing, Dave (talk) 15:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's true, I've heard of it myself, but it seems that that should go on the tomato page not here. This page isn't about the tomato-vegtable phenomenon (the tomato article has a section on that). This link is Broken 28 June 2005 15:16 (UTC)

The USDA ruled that ketchup could be used in school lunches as a vegetable. However Jeffrey Steingarten points out in his book The Man Who Ate Everything that a 4 Tbs serving of ketchup is nutritionally equivalent to an entire medium tomato.Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Up to you. This article may want to point directly to that section. Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 16:48 (UTC)

other cases[edit]

SALTONSTALL v. WIEBUSCH & HILGER, 156 U.S. 601 (1895) noted Nix v. Hedden as a precedent for looking at dictionary definitions as opposed to technical ones:

There was no evidence in this case that the word 'forgings' was used in any commercial or technical sense among manufacturers, and, in the absence of such evidence, we are bound to presume that it was used in its ordinary and commonly accepted sense of metal shaped by heating and hammering. Swan v. Arthur, 103 U.S. 597 ; Maddock v. Magone, 152 U.S. 368 , 14 Sup. Ct. 588. Of this use of words the court takes judicial notice. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 , 13 Sup. Ct. 881.[1] (I'm User:Harry491, though I'm not signed in.)

Background/Actual Case[edit]

It would be nice to have more information about the case itself, and the background of the case before it starts discussing the tomato/vegitable thing. For example, there should be reference to specific prior Court decisions, specific laws at issue here, more info about who the different parties in the case were, and background as to why the case was started/why it made its way to the Supreme Court.

Question on origin of "nix"[edit]

This question was just left in the "Notes" section of the article; I've moved it here. Kickaha Ota 16:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this, but here goes: Could this be the etymology for the word "nix" as a verb? I.e., the Supreme Court nixed the case? 16:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Shanakay

Unlikely. Although the usage of nix as a verb meaning "to nullify" or "to erase" dates from around 1930, the word as a noun meaning "nothing" was used as early as the 1780s (OED). 18:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nix v. Hedden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    Lead section. Footnote number should be after the comma: see WP:CITE.
    The case. Use double instead of single quotation marks to enclose word like "fruit" and "vegetables" (except if the single quotations were used in direct quotations): see WP:MOS#Quotation characters. Block quotes do not need to be enclosed in quotation marks: see WP:MOS#Block quotations.
    The Court's decision. Remove the quotation marks from the block quote. Remove the external link from the page number "42". For consistency, remove the spaces around the em dash.
    Subsequent history. Remove the quotation marks from the block quote. Suggest you put a space between "F." and "2d" in the citation. Footnote 2 should end with a period.
    External links. How similar is Rocknel Fastener, inc v. United States to this case? Is it really relevant enough to be mentioned?
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    • The article currently lacks sufficient inline citations. At the very least, each paragraph should have a footnote at the end of it to indicate the source of the information. This is particularly important for direct quotations. If you are citing from the report of the case, indicate the page numbers of the case where the information and quotations were obtained from.
    • A book entitled Legal Ramblings is indicated in the "References" section, but there are no inline citations to it in the main body of the article.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    • I think a bit more background information about the case is required. The section entitled "The case" jumps straight into a discussion of the parties' arguments as to whether the tomato should be regarded as a fruit or a vegetable. I think the article should say something about why this issue arose in the context of the Tariff Act 1883.
    • Similarly, in the section entitled "The Court's decision", the implications of the Court's conclusions about the tomato being a vegetable on the Tariff Act issue to be set out. The case was not brought by the plaintiffs simply because they were interested to know whether the tomato was a fruit or vegetable, but because it had some significance in relation to the Act. This should be explained.
    • Please elaborate on how the case was a "precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions".
    • "In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited Nix as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the official state vegetable." This sounds interesting; can more details be provided?
    B. Focused:
    • The sentence "Justice Gray ... stated that when words have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce the ordinary meaning must be used by the court" is puzzling to me, and I think it requires a bit more explanation. If certain words have acquired a special meaning in trade or commerce, why must the court ignore that special meaning and give the words an ordinary meaning instead?
    • "In this case dictionaries cannot be admitted as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court." Explain why this is the case. Is this a principle limited to the facts of the case? If so, why?
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Apart from the above, the article is generally well written. I will put the GA review on hold so that you can improve the article. This page is on my watchlist, so leave any questions you have for me here, as well as a notification when you have finished working on the article. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this article. Two weeks have passed, but no one has revised the article. Any editor interested in trying to take this article to GA status again is welcome to make the changes suggested above, relist the article at "Wikipedia:Good article candidates", and contact me for a further review. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)