Talk:Wisconsin v. Yoder

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	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.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Baptist Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Baptist work group.

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin 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.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cleaned up the External Links

I cleaned up the old links in the extra work they caused

section to the new links if I could find one. One I could not find, but most of the links are current as of now. Next week I will be on a podcast with Torah from Amish Heritage Foundation who is trying to organize an overturn of the Yoder case. - Joseph Slabaugh AKA Mrdeleted

What's wrong with relying on primary sources?

Why is this saying it to too heavily relying on "primary sources"? I am former Amish and this case affected me personally, but what improvements are needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I do not get it either surely primary sources are BETTER than secondary or tertiary sources - that is what historians believe. Best is original language primary sources, many wikipedians seem to want to have National Enquirer journalism sources rather than the original ones. Translations and journalism and popular science will be less accurate and thus not as good as original sources. I am all for showing what most people believe, but popular misconceptions and errors will be more prevalent and so not such good articles if originals are spurned for this second and third class inferior stuff.Put original language and reliable translations etc. not just tertiary sources has got to be better practice than relying on hack journos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.38.246 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was the ruling?

In other Supreme Court cases on Wikipedia, it says the ruling for the case (like 9-0). Why it doesn’t say that for this case? 2600:8804:B8F:3700:5928:1ADF:B14B:59D6 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]