Talk:Civil procedure in the United States

	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.

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.

Redlinks need major work

Keep in mind that California, New York, and Illinois maintain nearly all of their civil procedure systems as enacted statutory law: the California Code of Civil Procedure, the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, and the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.

Also, most of the other states that have civil procedure rules put the state name first, so for example, Nevada has the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida has the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes

This article needs to be expanded, not contracted. Civil procedure is an incredibly complex concept. The sections and subsections here are entirely proper and need to be filled in. It is absolutely logical and clear. It is by no means an indiscriminate collection of random information. Quite the contrary, the article without the Vercillo edits is the random collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.56.35 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Vercillo's edits is that they are written like a first-year law student's civil procedure outline at a third-tier law school and are wholly out of compliance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Most of Vercillo's edits consisted largely of a rather poorly written, disorganized, incoherent outline instead of a flowing prose treatment of the subject as required by the Manual of Style. And the prose components tended to dive way too deep into subjects already covered in-depth elsewhere on Wikipedia (thus unnecessarily duplicating existing content), which also violates the Manual of Style. The proper Wikipedia style for broad subjects is to do a high-level treatment of the subject with links to in-depth articles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

This article has been tagged since August 2011 as needing more sources for verification. Yet, little has been done to correct this problem. Indeed, more unsourced information was just added to the section "Court rules or statutes?" That section has only one citation. The rest of it is unsourced. It reads like an essay, a fairly readable essay and possibly even an accurate one, but that's not the point. We can't just write our own material and ignore the rules (pun intended). I'm reluctant to remove unsourced material from the article, but that may have to be done absent sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]