This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United States federal courts,
courthouses, and
United States federal judges 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.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
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.
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 articles
I'm not sure why the salaries of the justices are included in the article. I deleted the section once, as have others, and it has been restored multiple times. Other state supreme court articles that are far better than this one do not include lists of salaries—see
New Jersey Supreme Court,
Supreme Court of Florida, and
Supreme Court of California—and not even the
Supreme Court of the United States includes such detailed information. I'm inclined to simply delete the whole section, but it looks like there may be an edit war starting. Can we discuss first? What are the reasons for wanting to include the information?
— Gbms86—talk21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
It is fairly standard for compensation to be given in Wikipedia articles. For example one can confirm the tendency by reviewing the Wikipedia pages for President Obama, and several pages on the U.S. congress. Newspapers in Ohio regularly report on public salaries such as these from week to week. Please look at the large number of daily papers produced by Cox publishing. This evinces a national and statewide interest in public salaries. Websites in Ohio are devoted to this. I think that given the recent discussions of finance in the congress and in the Ohio statehouse, one cannot take the position that the inclusion of compensation is trivia. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Marqqq (
talk •
contribs)
00:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Let's look at the actual text that
Marqqq added to the article --
See also
Partial compensation package: Salaries
Name Job description Judge Wages Overtime Year
oconnor, maureen elected official judiciary $148,258.00 $0.00 2010
pfeifer, paul e elected official judiciary $146,624.00 $0.00 2010
odonnell, terrence elected official judiciary $148,258.00 $0.00 2010
stratton, evelyn elected official judiciary $146,624.00 $0.00 2010
cupp, robert r elected official judiciary $148,258.00 $0.00 2010
lanzinger, judith a elected official judiciary $148,258.00 $0.00 2010
Yvette McGee Brown elected official judiciary unknown 2010
The above is public information collected by the Buckeye Institute
I have several concerns with this insertion. First, the most important (because it is substantive rather than stylistic) is that the source information given is insufficient to allow other editors to
verify the information. If this is published information, then there should be enough identifying data provided to enable others to locate the publication themselves. Second, the form in which the information is presented is ugly and unclear, as it is an unformatted table (with names not even capitalized) and loads of redundancy. Third, this information does not belong in a "See also" section, per
WP:LAYOUT.
I would not have any objection to stating the justices' salaries in a more sensible format if an adequate reference were provided. For example, we could add a sentence to the "Justices" section stating that "As of 2010, Justices received salaries of $146,624 to $148,258 per annum." (Why were different justices paid different amounts, anyway?) --
R'n'B (
call me Russ)
18:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I didn't bother to elaborate on the minutia of extracting of the data from Buckeye Institute, but if anyone is interested in verifying these data, s/he can visit the Buckeye Institute page, choose state salaries, then the judiciary category, then name the judges or more tediously scroll the entire list finding the salaries of interest in this somewhat long distribution. I checked some other websites purporting to give such information and these figures seem entirely consistent. Marqqq
It does appear as though far more effort has gone into restoring the section after being deleted and defending it than actually went into its creation. If it were to be included in this way, it should have been neatly formatted into a table. It's been removed for now, and I suggest we leave it that way until someone finds a neat citation to verify the information. Also, I very much like R'n'B's suggestion that we simply include that justices in any given year made between X-number of dollars and X-number of dollars. I would encourage anyone interested in adding this information to see the salary section in the article on the
Supreme Court of the United States which uses the format suggested by R'n'B.
— Gbms86—talk21:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The table that now appears in the article (still without any citation of a source) is somewhat less ugly than the previous effort. However, what value is provided to the reader by repeating the justices' names, which are already listed earlier in the article? What value is provided to the reader by identifying each of them as a "Judge" (which is technically not even the correct title), which has already been stated clearly earlier in the article? What value is added by the "overtime" column? In short, why devote all this space and so many needless words to a topic that can be addressed quite adequately in a single sentence of prose? --
R'n'B (
call me Russ)
20:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The table results and other judiciary data can now be easily reviewed at the Buckeye Institute. Marqqq 5th Sept. 2011
Images
Hello everyone, I would like to add
this and
this if no one has any objections. I will not replace the seal, just put them in the article. We can still keep the image already there if it is requested.
Thanks,
Sixflashphoto (
talk)
08:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply