Talk:Supreme Court of Ohio
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
seal
editI am pretty sure we could create a public domain version of the seal instead of File:SEAL - SUPREME COURT OHIO.GIF. We'd need to find a good PD copy of Ohio seal (note that File:Seal of Ohio (Official).svg isnt a good basis, as it does not include pre 1977 publishing information), and then change the text as described.[1] John Vandenberg (chat) 04:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Compensation
editI'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—talk 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
- Let's look at the actual text that Marqqq added to the article --
See alsoPartial compensation package: Salaries
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)
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—talk 21:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
| Name | Job description | Wages | Overtime | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| o'connor, maureen | judge | $148,258.00 | $0.00 | 2010 |
| pfeifer, paul e | judge | $146,624.00 | $0.00 | 2010 |
| odonnell, terrence | judge | $148,258.00 | $0.00 | 2010 |
| stratton, evelyn | judge | $146,624.00 | $0.00 | 2010 |
| cupp, robert r | judge | $148,258.00 | $0.00 | 2010 |
| lanzinger, judith a | judge | $148,258.00 | $0.00 | 2010 |
| brown, yvette mcgee | judge | not reported | $0.00 | 2010 |
- 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)
The table results and other judiciary data can now be easily reviewed at the Buckeye Institute. Marqqq 5th Sept. 2011
Images
editHello 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)
Past justices
editA list of past justices would be informative 12.173.254.36 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
New Disciplinary Counsel
editDidn't want to edit but noticed the article is not up to date re:who is the disciplinary counsel. https://courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2019/CaligiuriAppt_092319.asp 162.84.128.192 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)