Talk:Judiciary Act of 1793

Law Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

De-stubifying[edit]

I'm the person who just tried to de-stubify the article.

The article as I found it was entirely about the 1789 (emphasis, NOT 1793) Judiciary Act. I kept what I needed and jettisoned the rest. The only research I did was to read th actual text of the 1793 Act, as referenced in the article. Therefore, my summary amounts to original research.

I suggest that whoever goes and tries to fix this deplorable situation actually refer to a history of the US judiciary, or something of the sort, rather than just undo all my changes and leave the article in the nearly useless condition I found it in.

Depending on how things go in the next 24 hours, I may do this myself.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com not currently in possession of a website, so unable to give the bona fides I usually give for not being a complete idiot when I post to talk pages, since I'm not a registered Wikipedian. Sorry! 97.113.58.185 (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...on to de-originalising...

OK, didn't get a chance to do any library research, but did do some Web searches and get a little backup. (Fixed a mistake too.) I'd prefer to have more than one book reference and will see what I can do this weekend. Meanwhile, two other issues.

1. I thought the answers.com article about injunctions was really good, but didn't want to overbalance the main text even further; should there be an explanation in the link section? ("The Anti-Injunction Act originates from Section 5 of the 1793 Act, and this article discusses the 1793 Act and its later history in some detail" ?)

2. Should the article link to the Google Books copy of the book I reference? It's supposedly limited preview, but when I looked at it, it gave me the entire 12-page discussion of the 1793 Act, except for one illustration. URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=3nw7Du1Mf5EC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200

3. I included a note about bogus references to the 1793 Act because a lot of the websites that sell high school students essays make this mistake, but I didn't want to link to an actual example that would then become a game of whack-a-mole; anyway, yes, that note is original research, sigh. (If you want to be really purist, so's the comment about the injunctions section being the most lasting part of the 1793 Act.)

Anyway, hope this helps.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com and now I can once again point to http://www.panix.com/~josephb/ for examples of my research skills, such as they are. 97.113.49.94 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]