Talk:Moot court

Law Stub‑class 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am proposing this page be merged with Moot (legal training). They cover (essentially) the same topic. -- Gnetwerker 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found afterwards that there is a Moot court article, so a Request to Merge would be sensible. I noticed that in the UK and AU/NZ, they just say "a moot" in the context of legal training, but in the US, they say "Moot court". Support. --Concrete Cowboy 13:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger done -- Gnetwerker 06:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links validity

copy of discussion on user talk pages that really belongs here. I deleted external links that seemed to me to be spamvertising. --John Maynard Friedman 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Moot Court Programs

I sincerely don't know how the "moot court" article can be considered complete without mention of the first and only ranking to evaluate American moot court programs - bestmootcourtprograms.com. Pre-law students are nuts about rankings. Accordingly, law schools are nuts about their rankings. Two law schools have already touted their rank at bestmootcourtprograms.com. It was cited as the authority in a wikipedia footnote (by someone other than the administrator of bestmootcourtprograms.com). Before the BMCP ranking, law schools would say they were the best at moot court. Such a claim was never controverted because no one had any profit incentive to collect and add-up the finishes across large moot court competitions. There remains no profit incentive. But BMCP does it anyway. BMCP has yet to receive a penny in compensation. Please contact TheRanker@BestMootCourtPrograms.com if you need to verify the previous sentence. BestMootCourtPrograms.com is not an advertiser in the traditional sense of the word - it has received no remuneration. Additionally, it is the ranking that American moot court programs are scrambling to game and win. Soon, American moot court programs will stop sending their teams to any competition with 23 or less teams, because the ranking only incorporates results from competitions with 24 or more teams. This is a change-the-game type of "advertiser." Isn't wikipedia in the business of letting the world know how the game has changed? I hope so. I love learning from wikipedia. Jimdugan 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're conservative in your estimation of notable advertisers, you may wish to look twice at leaving undisturbed the following links currently posted under the "See Also" section of your "moot court" article: Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition The Annual Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot (Vis Moot) The European Law Moot Court Competition Moot Alumni Association (MAA), the Alumni Association of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot NOTE: anything that is a moot court competition (and, I'm guessing, an "alumni association" of a moot court) is probably promotional in nature as moot court competitions normally charge a hefty fee to participants. to the extent that Jessup is allowed to remain because it is a notable "advertiser," then bestmootcourtprograms.com should be allowed to stay as a notable "advertiser." however (unlike Jessup, I'm guessing), bestmootcourtprograms.com has not yet received a penny in compensation from anyone.Jimdugan 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that I have applied the policy on "advertising links" inappropriately to the article Moot court, please contact an Administrator. See Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. I'm happy to be over-ruled if I'm wrong. --John Maynard Friedman 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you'll like my "edit" of the "moot court" article. I have deleted any reference under "See Also" to articles that provide information on moot court competitions (or "alumni associations" thereof, whatever those are) on the grounds that moot court competitions are nearly always fee-generating, which means that correspondent articles will probably be viewed by "wikipedia" as advertising (as I've been made to understand wikipedia's meaning of the term). If you decide to reinstate these references, I hope you'll give second thought to my references and articles regarding BestMootCourtPrograms.com, which is a notable "advertiser" in the same realm as the competitions I deleted today. To the extent that it is within my power, I'm not going to allow deletion of BestMootCourtPrograms.com on grounds that implicate links you're leaving undisturbed (links I've deleted today). Further, to the extent that I can, I will maintain consistency in the "standards" policing the "moot court" article, so that wikipedia's audience will not have to view the "moot court" world through a Eurocentric lens -- a lens that should become apparent to anyone tracking your edits of the "moot court" article.Jimdugan 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I don't make the policy so it's not me you have to convince. Please ask for Adminstrator attention. --John Maynard Friedman 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Article Moot court and user talk discussion --John Maynard Friedman 12:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to a request for third-opinion posted at the Law Portal. I had never looked at this article before today. I am a lawyer in the United States admitted in several jurisdictions, I have participated in moot courts as both a competitor while in law school and a judge since. Having reviewed the proposed link, it is blatant Adversting and the linked page uses phrases like "It's my discretion driving this ship" with out even any disclosure of who the speaker is or what his or her conflicts of interest might be. Also no discussion here by the proponent of the reliability of the page linked or why anyone would want it - other than that "law schools are nuts about their rankings" which isn't relevant and only supports the argument that it is advertising. I support the removal of the link. If the proponent wants it in, he or she should be prepared to cite the provisions of relevant policies that allow it, rather than saying things like "as I've been made to understand."

The current links appear justified - though I might have concerns about the alumni association, I don't know that it's very important for an encyclopedia article. Certainly the Jessup link is justified, though I think there should be others.

This article does not do the topic justice, it is very short and these competitions have a great variety of forms world-wide. I don't agree with the differentiation between moot courts and mock trials. I've competed in mock trials and we called them moot courts every time. In my experience both terms include both law school and law firm trial prep activities as well as educational competitions outside of law school, such as in some American high schools. In any event the ideas are so similar that the articles should be merged.

I have tagged the article as a stub and the talk page as part of the Law Project, I'll do the same at Mock trials. My assessment of the importance as "Low" is based on this being a item of interest primarily to law students and some lawyers - rather than the general public; to law students it may be very important, but that's not the criteria.

I don't see how the present article can be seen as Euro-centric, please elaborate.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistent administration of the moot court article = Currently, under external links (or whatever) of the moot court article, there is a reference to a First Amendment moot court competition. Nearly all moot court competitions charge fees. Why is this allowed to remain while bestmootcourtprograms.com, which (for no fee) adds up finishes (winner/finalist/semifinalists) across large moot court competitions, has been systematically deleted by the powers that be.

However, not a single one of us should delete the First Amendment MCC unless he/she is also prepared to delete every article referenced under the "see also" section of the "moot court" article. Each of these is a moot court competition (or proxy therefor, i.e. alumni association thereof), and nearly all moot court competitions charge fees. From what I've learned of wikipedia's deletion practices of articles such as "best moot court programs," articles regarding moot court competitions should be likewise deleted.

I understand now that the proper place for referencing the notable bestmootcourtprograms.com may be under external links (moot court article) under the link name "Best Moot Court Programs (United States". People no doubt want to check out how American law schools stack up when facing each other. However, under see also and external links, all references to moot court competitions should be deleted. The articles should be as well.

However, if these competition articles are not deleted because someone decides they are consistent with wikipedia's preference for notability and prohibition of advertising, then that decisions-maker should think very seriously about reinstating "best moot court programs" as an article as well.Jimdugan 12:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-centric = the largest domestic moot court competition run by the American Bar Association is not referenced. But Jessup, etc., are because they field largely European teams. While references and articles regarding Jessup, etc., are allowed to litter the moot court article, references to bestmootcourtprograms.com, which merely adds-up then posts American moot court results, is called spam notwithstanding the fact that it receives not a single penny from moot court programs - unlike competitions referenced, which charge huge fees to competition participants.

my discretion driving this ship = Brian Koppen's justification for excluding competitions that are limited to one race, or residents of one state. Simply letting programs know that they should think twice before sending teams to these competitions, which do not allow programs equal footing.

bestmootcourtprograms.com has disclosed Brian Koppen's status as an alum of a moot court program = The site has disclosed that Brian Koppen is an alum of Kent's moot court program. Of course, this is why he is uniquely situated to defend his ranking methodology. He finished final four out of 176 teams at American Bar Association's National Appellate Advocacy Competition (2007), but does not make his finish dispositive in favor of Kent. He won Regional Best Brief, but does not count brief awards. Kent boasts the top advocate at Pace Environmental, another mega-competition, but Brian Koppen does not count advocate awards.Jimdugan 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no external links to European programmes. The only European references are to topics that have articles. I guess you could try to create an article for BestMootPrograms but it has to pass WP:Notable to stand. --John Maynard Friedman 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. First, the articles should be deleted. Second, the references should be deleted. They are moot court competitions that no doubt charge fees. How are they notable per wikipedia's standards? Aren't they merely "advertisers"? I thank you for your counsel. Jimdugan 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can substantiate that, then certainly mount a challenge on their talk pages. You can also use the WP:Notable and WP:Articles for deletion procedure to argue that they are invalid or biased and should be deleted. Or more simply, you can edit them with criticisms provided you cite a credible external source as making that criticism. (Editors aren't allowed to have their own opinions - see WP:NOR). --John Maynard Friedman 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

external links = let's set aside the fact that bestmootcourtprograms.com has not received a single penny of compensation for undertaking the time-consuming task of collecting and adding up results across large moot court competitions (admittedly American in focus). Allowing an external link named "Best Moot Court Programs (United States)" doesn't itself promote the name of bestmootcourtprograms.com. All it does is allow the wikipedia reader to use wikipedia as a jump-off point for further research on the topic of moot court. Isn't this the goal of the external links section? If not, I have no idea what the external links section is for. If you tell me that this is the goal of the section, I will continue to add the link. However, if I'm on this spam list, I doubt that wikipedia will let me. Jimdugan 13:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be used to link only to substantial sources of more detailed information, such as government resources or standards bodies. (I'm sure you will find examples where that rule is ignored!) Linking to commercial sources is frowned upon unless they notable in their own right - the WSJ, NASDAQ, etc. Maybe in time your site will become an established resource and deserve its own article - but it has to happen in that order, not the other way round. That is what we mean by "spamvertising" - trying to gain business through a Wikipedia mention. Incidentally, you get absolutely zero citation value in Google etc from a reference in Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks jmf Of course, relative to anything else in the moot court world, bmcp.com is notable. However, I'll back out of this discussion, acknowledging that I should have some press clippings in my pocket before I defend bmcp.com's notability to third parties. I've learned a lot through my discussion with you, and I sincerely thank you for your time.Jimdugan 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I add, for consideration. The above discussion seems to be exclusively about how to represent the US system within the generic definition which is applicable across the commonwealth and beyond. I had never heard of BMCP before reading this and believe it is a function of the profound disparity in quality of legal education available in the US. As a Canadian law student and competitor in a number of moots, I believe the article is sufficently general to provide a basic understanding of the term. Expanding it, without creating a separate heading for 'Moots in Country X' for example, would confuse the definition. Fred Tranquilli, London, Canada LL.B candidate 08

mock trial

Moot court and mock trial are not the same thing. Moot court is appellate level; 3-9 judges; presentation of arguments only; no evidence. Mock trial is trial level; 1 judge; presentation of evidence and opening/closing "speeches." Jimdugan 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger from Mock trial

I have proposed that Mock trial be merged into this article. See some of my points in the immediately preceding discussion. Additionally, a review of the article Mock trial shows that it is primarily a discussion of moot competitions at the high school and undergraduate college/university level, in addition to a not very notable list of winners and even championship round participants. I am unconvinced that there is the difference both articles advance. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible oppose. The two subjects have nothing to do with each other, except for the fact that each involves a feigned legal proceeding. However, moot court is a nationally recognized law school activity, with virtually every law school fielding a moot court team, which engages in writing briefs and conducting appellate oral arguments only. There are no witnesses, no trial is conducted, and only issues of law are developed. There is no "trial" at all. bd2412 T 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal:Here are some examples contrary to your position:

1. Use of the term "Moot Court" to refer to a national level high school competition.[1] (albeit appellate)

2. Use of the term "Moot Court" to refer to a Law School level trial advocacy competition.[2] And here. [3] And here. [4] And possibly also here.[5]

3. Here it is used to refer to a high school trial. [6]

4. A twist, here is the term "Moot Trial" used at Tel Aviv University. [7]

I am aware that many schools use the phrase "moot court and mock trial" or "moot court/mock trial" to refer to their particular programs - although this does tend to support some differentiation by (I would concede) a majority of schools, it does not support the idea that "The two subjects have nothing to do with each other". Just because the terms may often be used in ways that are slightly different from each other, doesn't justify two different articles.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must strongly object to your insertion of the text:

Moot court does not involve the examination of witness or the presentation of evidence; rather, it is focused solely on the application of the law to a common set of evidentiary assumptions to which the competitors must be introduced.

In the interest of avoiding an edit war and the fact that similar language is already there, I have not removed the text to here, merely quoted it. But I do not believe that it is justifiable, based on my references above, to say that it never involves the elements of a trial. Further, I don't believe it benefits the article to insert the language in the middle of the discussion, in effect attempting to define the article out of the dispute. I must insist that you immediately validate your assertion with a reliable source.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]