Talk:Full Faith and Credit Clause

FFC Never Used to Validate Out of State Marriage

The discussion of DOMA is somewhat irrelevant because the Full Faith and Credit Clause has NEVER been used to validate an out-of-state marriage of any kind. States recognise each other's marriages under their own rules of comity and cofnlict of laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.254.117 (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Marriage Licence cf. Mariage Certificate

There is some confusion between the terms "marriage licence" and "marriage certificate". NO jurisdiction recognises a marriage LICENCE from another jurisdiction. ALL jurisdictions worldwide recognise MOST marriage CERTIFICATES.

In most US states, the marriage licence and the marriage certificate are printed on the same sheet of paper - which explains why some people think they are the same thing. They are, in fact, two legally distinct documents, despite appearing to be a single document.

A marriage LICENCE is proof that a couple meet the requirements OF THE JURISDICTION THAT ISSUES THE LICENCE to marry IN THAT JURISDICTION. Example: A couple who live in California get a California marriage licence. That means they meet California requirements to get married in California. It does NOT mean they meet Nevada requirements to get married in Nevada. Only Nevada can issue a marriage licence to people who want to get married in Nevada; only Maryland can issue a marriage licence that is valid in Maryland; and so on.

A marriage CERTIFICATE is proof that a couple are married. Marriage CERTIFICATES are valid anywhere in the world (unless the marriage is illegal in the forum jurisdiction) because they prove that you ARE married.

A marriage LICENCE, on the other hand, is only valid in the jurisdiction that issues it - and then, only for a limited period of time; usually 30 days. If you do not get married within 30 days of getting the marriage licence, it is automatically voided. A marriage CERTIFICATE, on the other hand, never expires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.254.117 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

DOMA discussion

Not all of DOMA was held unconstitutional, only section 3, as the citation clearly states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.189.241 (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The DOMA discussion is important information, but peripheral to the FF&C clause article (and vice versa).

Tahrlis 16:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the [above] commentator [, Tahrlis,] that the "same-sex controversy" belongs as an Additional Link at the bottom (but I've made enough changes for today).

The DOMA, and even domestic relations issues generally, is but a part of the storied history of full faith and credit, and its implications for state sovereignty and federalism. Other recent parts of this story include right to die, drugs, status of travellers and workers, state immunity from lawsuits under the Eleventh Amendment, etc. Windy inclusion of "same-sex controversy" in the main article demonstrates lack of perspective.

Also, removed issue about conflicts between federal circuit courts, and their resolution by the US Supreme Court. This is not a Full Faith and Credit issue.

jdmonahan 22 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmonahan (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 July 2006

Needs to be flagged for general readers. As it is written, DOMA "has been noted for its application involving orders of protection…and its possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union and domestic partnership laws and cases, as well as the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment". By whom, when? "The clause has been the chief constitutional basis for the repeated attacks on the DOMA." Attacks of what nature, when, and by whom?

Scalia's dissent mentions full faith and credit parenthetically, but it's not an issue technically before the court in Lawrence, and doesn't appear once in the majority opinion here.

Suffenus iste (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case involving recognition of a foreign gay marriage - there are several published cases from NY concerning Mass. gay marriages, generally in the context of dissolution. I'll give some cites when I get my materials from the Duke Law conference back from a prof who borrowed them from me. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Would Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships apply in States that don't have such Laws? Or would they have to be recognized as Marriages? Would New Jersey have to recognise California's Domestic Partnerships, which are essentially equivalent to the common understanding of "Civil Union", as Civil Unions? Would a Designated Beneficiary partnership from Hawaii, which grants some but not all rights of Marriage, have to be recognised as a valid Marriage or Civil Union or Domestic Partnership, despite the difference in number of rights granted?--Occono (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral or not

I don't think the article [is] non-neutral, as the tag says. It could use additional details about the other applications (and nonapplications) of the clause, but I don't think this make the article slanted a particular POV. Triangular 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Licenses

For the layman, this article could use a section on licenses, such as a license to drive, and why they are or are not covered under this clause. Anybody? JonathanFreed 16:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 23:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added a section to Driver's licenses in the United States, having never heard the issue addressed one way or another, and furthermore because Missouri has, weirdly enough, brought transsexuality and and gender-assigned-at-birth into the discussion. kencf0618 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Excerpt

Where the heck is the actual excerpt of the Full Faith and Credit Clause from the Constitution? I just figured it would be in quotes at the top of the page so that it may be referred to throughout the rest of the article. Thank you. Yankhill (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Debt ceiling

It may be relevant to discuss the definition of "full faith and credit" in this article, as pertains to the 2011 debt ceiling political situation. The phrase seems to be trending in politician quotes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.160.4.6 (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that that use of the phrase, that extension of the meaning, probably does deserve a place somewhere. It's grown rapidly to become almost the default term for what would have been lost if the debt ceiling wasn't raised. Not sure exactly where it fits or how in the article, though. Joe (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Though unspecified persons may have used the phrase "full faith and credit" in the course of debates on the debt ceiling, and I am not yet convinced that anyone of note and/or intelligence has, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S Constitution has nothing, absolutely noting, to do with the financial credit of the U.S.

The "full faith and credit of the U.S." and the "Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution" are 2 different animals.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FDIC

The phrase "full faith and credit" appears in the Congressional Record with respect to FDIC-insured deposits. This is described on fdic.gov . I am not sure it appears with respect to treasury debt or other debts.

Spope3 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed removal of example in Family Law section.

The example of the ruling by Judge Black in the Ohio death certificate case does not belong in this article. His ruling was based upon the Windsor ruling of SCOTUS and on 14th Amendment protections. He did not base his ruling on the Full Faith and Credit Clause. pdf link to judge's ruling in case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.120.80 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the recent (today, as I write this) SCOTUS decision on Obergefell, does this page need updating? I have not finished reading the majority decision to see if IV.i is mentioned. Tricorder42 (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Complication

This is an informative and clear article. One complication, however, is that the US is not the only country with a full faith and credit clause in its Constitution. The Australian Constitution at Section 118 has a similar clause. Solution? Perhaps rename this article "Full faith and credit clause (USA)", and then create another page "Full faith and credit clause (Australia)"? That would seem to be the simplest solution. The more complex solution would be a major re-write of the existing article, with an introduction stating that in any federation one needs a constitutional means whereby the laws of individual components will be recognized, indicating how a "good faith and credit clause" serves that purpose, and then giving the US and Australia as examples. But that seems a lot of work and additionally would disturb an otherwise well written article. I would favour the first approach. Any comments? Sue2016 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added a note to the top of the page redirecting people to the Australian version. Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. In this discussion an equal number of editors supported the move as opposed it, but consensus is not ascertained by counting votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

Assessing the discussion through this lens we see editors in support of the move citing WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, while editors in opposition cite MOS:LAW and WP:CONSISTENT.

I found that the MOS:LAW argument was effectively rebutted; as [[User:Cinderella157|]] points out, {{tq|Wikipedia articles are guided by Wikipedia's Manual of Style (including this page), and not by outside style guides.}}

I also found the WP:CONSISTENT argument to be weak; if we look at the broader picture the consistent position is to follow WP:NCCAPS, and to allow consistent to be used in this manner would result in the creation of walled gardens; exceptions created not by broad consensus by but local ones.

As such, this hinges on whether the supporters proved their case that NCCAPS applies, and to determine this we must review the provided evidence:

• The ngrams provided, when adjusted to a combined version, does; it shows only a slight majority for capitalization, insufficient to support the current title.
• The Google Scholar results, provided by the opposition, make a strong argument against the proposal, demonstrating that in the vast majority of cases of the articles indexed there capitalization is used.
• The JSTOR results, reviewing the final link provided by Cinderella157 and sorted by newest first, shows a clear preference for capitalization - 16 results to 6 on the first page.
• The HeinOnline, reviewing the first 100 results sorted by newest first, shows a clear preference for capitalization - 71 to 26

Most of these have issues; the HeinOnline results and the Google Scholar results, while generally reliable, are limited to a subset of results - legal documents - when we should be considering this more broadly.

Ngrams, meanwhile, while an excellent tool, contains a wide array of books, both those reliable and unreliable, and so it can't be considered quite equivalent to the scholarly searches.

This leaves us with the JSTOR results, and the question of whether a 3:1 preference is sufficient to meet the standard of {{tq|consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources}}.

On this question I find no consensus in this discussion; it is not such a significant majority that there is a consensus against this proposal based on strength of argument, but it is also not an insignificant majority, such that there would be a consensus against this proposal based on strength of argument. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Full Faith and Credit Clause → Full faith and credit clause – Not nearly consistently capped in sources. Majority lowercase, even, per book stats. Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The capitalized version appears to be slightly more common in recent years, but not nearly more common enough so its best to stick to sentence case per WP:NCCAPS. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is the common name today and is WP:CONSISTENT with other articles with titles named after clauses of the U.S. Constitution. See Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution. (The one current exception is Natural-born-citizen clause (United States), which has been moved 11 times and should be moved again.)

This is the predominant style in U.S. law for clauses of the Constitution. Here's what the Bluebook (the main U.S. legal style guide, see MOS:LAW#In the United States) says about it — even using this clause as the example:

Also, capitalize nouns that identify specific parts of the U.S. Constitution when referring to them in textual sentences, but not in citations:

Students in this class have studied the full faith and credit clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The students agree that the clause in that constitution is substantially similar to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Page 92, 20th ed.

As noted, the lower-case form can refer to corresponding clauses in other constitutions. Books are not the only relevant sources, so I checked use in articles with Google Scholar. Of the first 10 results since 2020, seven used Full Faith and Credit Clause. Of the other three, one was in German and another was about how the European Union should adopt a U.S.-style full faith and credit clause.

The capitalized form is also what the Supreme Court has used in cases since the middle of the 20th century. SilverLocust 🃏 💬 04:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

For use in case law, see Google Scholar's caselaw search. (You can change the search settings on the left to filter by court or sort by relevance.) SilverLocust 🃏 💬 23:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per SilverLocust's reasoning and research. Wikipedia, as a respected encyclopedia, really shouldn't be lowercasing phrases from or referring to the U.S. founding documents, and uppercasing by Bluebook and the U.S. Supreme Court seems determinative. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Qualified support/alternative for discussion The general advice (per MOS:CAPS) requires capitalisation in a substantial majority of sources. I acknowledge the google scholar search but this JSTOR search would indicate more mixed capitalisation. MOS:LAW would state: Because Wikipedia is not written for courts or legal experts more than for anyone else, standard legal styling does not always apply. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Style guides by jurisdiction: Wikipedia articles are guided by Wikipedia's Manual of Style (including this page), and not by outside style guides. However, style guides can and do influence the MOS, and are useful for making style decisions within the bounds of the MOS. The Bluebook has no standing in determining matters of WP style, (though it may be consulted in formulating our MOS). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal is subordinate to WP:MOS. It is clearly stated that in the case of any conflict between superior and subordinate guidance, the superior gudeline takes precidence.

What I am seeing is that this is being capitalised as a term of art or to distinguish the phrase in text. Where it is being used in lowercase it is often styled "full faith and credit" clause Per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we do not cap a term of art but use italics instead. While this should be lowercase as indicated by the nom, I suggest considering whether it is appropriate to style this as Full faith and credit clause or a similar alternative. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the MOS:LAW guideline is subordinate to the WP:MOS guideline, which is in turn subordinate to the article title policy and its WP:CRITERIA. The current practice better serves the criteria of WP:CONSISTENT, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:NATURAL.

Consistently capitalizing these better distinguishes them each as being a specific clause rather than a type of clause. For example, the title Contract Clause indicates that that is a proper name for a specific clause, not a common name for a type of clause. Contrast the pages in Category:Contract clauses, which are lowercased because they refer to a type of clause rather than the name of a specific clause (with an exception that should be fixed).

Similarly, "treaty clause" or "copyright clause" can easily mean a treaty provision or copyright provision rather than just the Treaty Clause and Copyright Clause. There have been subsequent full faith and credit clauses in other constitutions, but when referring to this specific one, you would be using the phrase as a proper noun. The general point of MOS:CAPS is to capitalize proper nouns and otherwise disregard stylization.

The italic alternative is a non-starter, since sources never italicize it. It would be an odd Wiki-neolo-stylism.

This is a long-standing distinction that should be retained unless there is a good reason to throw it out. See MOS:STYLERET. SilverLocust 🃏 💬 10:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

These rationale only confirm that this term is being capitalised for emphasis or distinction and not because it is considered as a proper noun|name (see Consistently capitalizing these better distinguishes them ... and This is a long-standing distinction ...). It is common legalese to capitalise certain phrases for emphasis and distinction - in effect, capitalising them as a term of art. The other common practice in litterature of using quote marks (eg "full faith and credit" clause) further confirms this. However, MOS:SIGNIFCAPS specifically tells us this is not WP's style to capitalise for this reason. A typographic practice (such as capitalisation) to define a term of art is context specific - ie, it relies on prose to establish (define) why a particular phrase has a particular or specific meaning in the particular context it is being used. The same phrase might have particular or specific meanings in different contexts with similar typographical practices to distinguish the phrase in those contexts. An article title using just the phrase, whether capitalised or using some other typographic device does not establish what the context is. As already noted: There have been subsequent full faith and credit clauses in other constitutions ... To say: but when referring to this specific one, you would be using the phrase as a proper noun is no more valid for these other cases except that this is clearly not a proper noun but a term of art. Search results evidence this, returning hits of the capitalised form for articles about other constitutions. This is EN WP not US WP. It is a poor POV to assert that on WP, the US has precedence over all other Anglophone groups.

Stating that The current practice better serves the criteria of WP:CONSISTENT, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:NATURAL is a largely unsubstantiated assertion and one that can be rebutted. Reference to the clause is commonly rendered as "full faith and credit" clause. This is certainly equally natural. The assertions of WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:PRECISE only apply if one has a US centric preconception of context. Also, because US writers and US publishers also use "full faith and credit" clause There is consistency with other titles but consistency does not carry a preponderance of weight. Arguments for consistency generally fall to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments with a presumption that this "other stuff" is inherently correct. There is no virtue in being consistently wrong. I acknowledge these other articles and to my mind, there are two possible ways to proceed: either use this discussion as a test case or restart a discussion addressing these articles as a whole. The problem with the latter is a presumption that that the circumstances for each article are identical - something that may well not be true.

In this particular case, we need to acknowledge that there is no other actual article that this term needs to be disambiguated from. The issue of precision is largely a matter of disambiguation when disambiguation is necessary. There is no necessary disambiguation in this case.

MOS:STYLERET states: Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Capitalisation for emphasis or distinction is specifically not an acceptable style. Therefore, the conditions to be met for invoking MOS:STYLERET have not been met. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The terms of art themselves aren't capitalized. It's just due process, free exercise, necessary and proper, full faith and credit. The name of a specific legal text, in contrast, tends to be capitalized. See MOS:INSTITUTIONS (noting that the "outputs" of these institutions get the same distinction). A city but the City of Brisbane, an act but the Riot Act, a case but the Persons Case. This isn't Americentrism, it's just that other countries seldom name provisions "the [Subject] Clause" like this reads to me like a proposition that is self-contradicting.

Similarly there is Article Four, Section One, Clause One of the United States Constitution, known more commonly as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This isn't Americentrism, it's just that other countries seldom name provisions "the [Subject] Clause" like this. One would be more likely to see something like Section 118 of the Constitution of Australia. But other countries do capitalize things like their respective Eighth Amendment.

I don't see many instances of "full faith and credit" clause. But for the few that do, I wouldn't characterize that as emphasis but rather quotation. That's from the text of the clause itself (albeit without the eighteenth-century capitalization of most nouns).

The WP:NATDIS point comes in when you consider that WP:CONSISTENT lowercasing would mean that other articles would be lowercased where there would be genuine ambiguity.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions, but it is an appropriate consideration in title policy. See, well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS itself and WP:SSEFAR. SilverLocust 💬 09:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

To: [t]he name of a specific legal text, in contrast, tends to be capitalized [then citing MOS:INSTITUTIONS]. City of Brisbane is the formal name arising arising from statute. The Riot Act is (I believe) an MOS:INCIPIT of the act's formal short title. The Persons Case (also Persons case in sources) is an alternative title to the formal title of Edwards v Canada (AG), which are both italicised in the article. On the otherhand, the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution does not have a heading that might be construed as a title (as in title of a work) for this clause. Instead, it is given a descriptive name and discriptive names are inherently appellatives (common names). The argument is to capitalise this descriptive term for significance and distinction thereby falling to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. The definite article (the) creates a specific referent, as opposed to a full faith and credit clause. The analogy that would draw on MOS:INSTITUTIONS is flawed because the comparison being made is not like with like. A term of art is a special word or phrase used in relation to a particular subject or activity[1] It is immaterial as to whether it is used generally within a particular subject, quite specifically within a particular subject or the particular subject is quite specific. It is still a term of art.

To: ... I wouldn't characterize that as emphasis but rather quotation. Quotation marks are used to identify direct speech, a quotation, or a phrase (see also the AGSM) For instances of usage see this JSTOR search I have already provided, where it is being used eg in view of the "full faith and credit" clause of the federal constitution. This is clearly not being used a quote of the constitution but a reference to the particular clause of the constitution in the same way that one might write: in view of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the federal constitution. There is no difference in meaning between these two examples.

To: ... when you consider that WP:CONSISTENT lowercasing would mean that other articles would be lowercased where there would be genuine ambiguity. This is an assertion not established by evidence but I will concede the possibility. Capitalisation is not the only means of natural disambiguation (WP:NATDIS). Capitalisation is generally a poor means of disambiguation (even though permitted) since it assumes the readers are reasonably familiar that there is a distinction between the capitalised and uncapitalised titles and that they make a conscious decision to type one form or the other, when it is quite common to just type lowercase because searches are predominantly case insensitive. This argument would assume that the present pattern is the best pattern for these articles to achieve the optimum balance of the five WP:CRITERIA. I would dispute this and propose that Full faith and credit clause of the United States constitution would be a far better alternative, albeit less concise. It is inherently more recognisable than a distinction based on capitalisation. It is without any ambiguity (precise) that it is a clause if the US constitution and not the general term or a clause in some other constitution. It is perfectly natural. See how often this construction (setting aside the issue of capitalisation or whether the abbreviation US is used) is used in WP aricles.[2] It would appear to be consistent with articles about parts of other constitutions such as Section 118 of the Constitution of Australia, though wheter we should use Y of the X consitution or Y of the Constitution of [the] X would need to be resolved but the former is less cumbersome and more concise.

What I said was generally fall to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments [emphasis added] because, while the link specificall referrs to deletion discussions, the intent of the shortcut is clearer than say WP:SSEFAR. Yes, some stuff exists for good reason. However, other stuff arguments of themself do not establish that the reason is indeed good and a good reason does not mean that it is the best. As I stated, there is a presumption that this "other stuff" is inherently correct. As I explain herein, there is seemingly a much better naming pattern than the one in use that relies on capitalisation. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The quotation marks in your JSTOR search are from the 1920s and 1930s. This was addressed by voorts. Sort by date and it's overwhelmingly capitalized. And likewise I oppose the non-concise alternative with unnecessary disambiguation from other topics rarely called this. SilverLocust 💬 06:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

And likewise I oppose the non-concise alternative with unnecessary disambiguation from other topics rarely called this [emphasis added]. Your meaning is not clear to me. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

In reference to Full faith and credit clause of the United States constitution. SilverLocust 💬 09:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia is not a specialized publication, and Google scholar results are irrelevant for determining capitalization in reliable sources, representing only a small fraction of overall usage and often specialist to boot. NGrams seem fairly conclusively inconclusive here, which means we default to sentence case in absence of consistent capitalisation in a substantial majority of sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note, knowing a bit about how some editors work, if this is incorrectly and sadly moved to lowercase please note that it is a local decision/change and not applicable to the pages of any other clauses of the United States Constitution - all of which are long-term uppercased except one outlier. I've just notified the talk pages of United States Constitution and Article Four of the United States Constitution, notifications which, in fairness, should have been made at the start of this RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose brought here from WP:LAW First, COMMONNAME states that a common name should be "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". Per SilverLocust, contemporary, independent, reliable, English-language sources almost uniformly use "Full Faith and Credit Clause". This is confirmed by a Jstor search and a HeinOnline search, both sorted by most recent first. Additionally, the book stats provided by the nom show that "Full Faith and Credit Clause" is the most common contemporary usage. Second, as SilverLocust noted, capitalization is consistent with every other Wikipedia article on constitutional clauses. Finally, this is the most recognizable name, as U.S. legal practitioners and courts use full caps, and anyone familiar with the Full Faith and Credit Clause will likely have seen it written that way. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  I repeated your search of JSTOR here, except instead of selecting content I can see, I selected everything and the results give a very different picture. It far from confirms that English-language sources almost uniformly use "Full Faith and Credit Clause". The HeinOnline search does indicate a higher usage of the capitalised form but that is reasonably expected from a specialised law database that (as I see it) contains hits for many judicial decisions that would fall to unnaturalness and punctilious exactitude (legalese) and are not representative of general usage - particularly when it is evident that capitalisation is being used for emphasis or distinction similar to how quote marks have been used for the same purpose in the post I am replying to (and elsewhere herein) and such usage of caps falls to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. Nonetheless evidence of capitalisation from the HeinOnline search is less than consistant with four out of the first six results being lowercase. Overall, it certainly does not support the conclusion that English-language sources almost uniformly use "Full Faith and Credit Clause". Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is consistent among articles about named clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It reflects typical practice, as voorts and SilverLocust have referenced. There is an obvious difference between the unnaturalness and punctilious exactitude of statutes and contracts (a.k.a. "legalese"), and ordinary scholarship, reference works, and other writings which happen to be about law (a.k.a. "reliable sources"). The former, meant to avoid unintended ambiguity in the face of heavily-parsed scrutiny, is obviously not the model for a reference work like Wikipedia. There is no basis to discount the latter, notwithstanding blanket dismissals of anything "specialized". Lastly, to the extent that some sources write "'full faith and credit' clause", that's quotation, as SilverLocust remarks; and in any case, the proposed title is not "Full faith and credit" clause (which no one is suggesting and I would oppose). Adumbrativus (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BilledMammal, there was and edit conflict with your close as I was adding the following.

• Additional evidence In addition to the ngram search for full faith and credit clause (above), the search can use modified phrases (up to the five word limit) to help confirm context. See this search for credit clause of the constitution, this and this search for credit clause of the US (noting this search of Google books that confirms the ngram predominantly refers to the full phrase credit clause of the US Constitution) and, this search for credit clause of the United (with this search confirming the predominant context is the credit clause of the United States Constitution - ie the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution). This search of JSTOR I provided in response to voorts (above) shows contemporary use of quote marks with various capitalisation in this context (eg “Full Faith and Credit” clause and ‘full faith and credit’ clause). Again, this tends to confirm that the capitalisation of the phrase (variously applied) is for emphasis and distinction falling to MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. The search of HeinOnline provided by voorts also shows examples of hyphenation (eg full-faith-and-credit clause in the context of the constitution such as in this source). This hyphenation would again tend to confirm the descriptive nature of the title of this article - ie full faith and credit is describing a particular clause. The conclusion is that the full faith and credit clause [of the constitution] is a common noun phrase that is sometimes capitalised for emphasis and distinction. MOS:SIGNIFCAPS specifically tells us not to emulate such a practice and that capitalisation for this purpose is not necessary per the general guidance at MOS:CAPS. Furthermore, various searches are not confirming that this is consistently capitalised to an extent that would cause us to capitalise the title phrase per the general advice at MOS:CAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also note that while you tend to give some primacy to the JSTOR results, if one looks past the first page (say, the first four), these results are still contemporary but give a quite different picture of the capitalisation. As this is essentially a statistical question, a particularly small sample will be much more susceptible to the influence of random errors/fluctuations. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you BilledMammal, for using some commonsense and accuracy to common name as used by the Supreme Court, law system, and justice system of the United States (including an entire branch of the nation's three-branch government). The use of "consistency" for titling is like a hammer carried by a newly-trained carpenter, easy to use it to force a nail through a plank but used with too much force, splits the plank. Akin to "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", the focus on consistency, even when 70% of sources and official names (and yes, official names should certainly be used when deciding such things here, because official are often the names that are known by the public which, of course, equates to "Common name") agree, is one of the oddly irregular and anti-commonsense aspects on Wikipedia. It should be ended, as editors who use it try to lowercase iconic names, official names, and other common names that the reading public recognizes instantly as a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

A move review has been started. see Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 March#Talk:Full Faith and Credit Clause. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)