Talk:Moot court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Bad, unverified info[edit]

Moot court isn't "usually" appellate. Moot court teams at nearly every law school compete in trial and appellate competition and can compete in specialized mediation, international arbitration and brief-writing competitions. This same nonsense claim is made on the "Mock Trial" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.232.140 (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • No, moot court is generally only appellate (or agreed facts). In virtually every country in the world I think you'll find this to be the case. And see, eg., the biggest moot in the world: the Jessup Moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.156.75 (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • 'The same claims were previously made when a merger with Mock Trial was mooted. Unverifiable assertions were made then that the two activities are the same, when regular participants around the world will make the point that they differ wildly. Before continuing this thread, please see the comments at 4 below (merger w/ mock trial). Shooty668 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Moot (legal training)[edit]

For the discussion on the merger with Mock Trial (proposed September 2007) see further down this page.

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

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)

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

External links validity[edit]

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)

Best Moot Court Programs[edit]

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)

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)


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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.55.69 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Merger from Mock trial[edit]

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)

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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
  • Oppose The fact that a minority of sources incorrectly define the subject is not a reason to merge them. The fact is that one is an appellate advocacy activity and the other is a trial advocacy activity. They are, however, so significantly different that they ought to have individual entries. To combine them would be to suggest that mock trial is some sort of subset of moot court, and that just isn't the case. JCO312 17:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like the merger has been done to me. I don't think they should be merged though as they are two distinct things, as the article notes. Moot court is a simulated appeal, while mock trial is a simulated trial. I don't know all the rules of Wikipedia, but referencing each other would be appropriate. They aren't the same though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.100.206 (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A further opposition Having been involved in both moots and mock trials at university (in the UK) I would further submit that it would be to go to far to suggest that mooting and mock trials should appear on the same page. Their is a clear demarcation between a first instance trial and the subsequent appeals. Moots have clearly defined fact-sets which derive from the evidence at first instance and these cannot be disputed. Conversely, mock trials are entirely about examining the evidence to reach a verdict. The skill sets required of the participants vary enormously from a more debating orientated approach in mooting to the more interrogatory style necessary at a mock trial. Shooty668 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The 2 articles should not be merged. Moot Court and Mock Trial are two very different disciplines that develop very different skill sets. Anyone who has been involved in either knows this. The fact that some random websites are confusing the issue doesn't mean wikipedia should as well. 205.173.35.130 (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I object to a merger of mock trial and moot court:

There is a huge difference between mock trial and moot court. To say that the two are the same is like saying that a trial and an appeal are the same. Mock trial is a trial and has all of the elements of a trial including Motions in Limine, opening statements, direct and cross examination and closing arguments. Moot court involves writing an appellate brief and arguing the appellate points. I guess baseball and basketball should be merged because they both use a round ball and are both a sport. Drdutko (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of merger-proposal template[edit]

I have deleted the merger proposal template from the main page as there is an overwhelming view in favour that Moot Court and Mock Trial should remain as separate pages.Shooty668 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Addition of further info regards to England and Wales[edit]

I have added some additional content regards to the structure of a moot in England and Wales. I will endeavour to add some content that covers Scotland in the near future, but the Scottish legal system is not my speciality. Key points of distinction from E&W would be the courts and the order of presentation.

I feel that some of the new content may be of significant relevance to other jurisdictions (particularly the USA) but I am unsure of how moots/moot courts are held, etc. outside of the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooty668 (talkcontribs) 05:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

List of champions and first runner-ups[edit]

The list has been updated several times to include WTO and FDI winners and runner-ups, but the changes have been discarded for no apparent reason. I would propose they be reintegrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.6.251 (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of 'List of champions and first runner-ups' and 'Records' subsections[edit]

Note: I have added a separate subsection for 'List of champions and first runner-up' to distinguish discussion on that topic (which appears resolved) from discussion about the 'records' section. HarrietNine (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

List of champions and first runner-ups[edit]

I have removed the section titled 'List of champions and runners up' from this article, for a number of reasons:

  1. Each competition page already has a list of winners and runners up. It is unnecessary and unhelpful to duplicate those lists here.
  2. It adds very little to the substance of the article to include a large table of winners and runners-up on a general page about moot courts.
  3. The table is massive, does not even fit in the width of a large monitor, and will only continue to expand with each year.
  4. The table includes overly intricate detail relative to the generality of the article, and only adds to article bloat. Janetcl (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
##No, not every page has that list. Further, WP is replete with articles that offer a "global" visual of such lists.
##If the problem is size, then reduce it or collapse the table.
##As above.
##As above. Manderiko (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I will leave the list of major competition results there until this discussion can be resolved (as to which I will post a further message), but in the meantime I am removing the "Mooters with multiple international championships" and "Records" subsections. That is obscure trivia, miscellaneous compilations of data, and the framing/choice of the records is not NPOV. Janetcl (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
In response to Manderiko:
  1. If the individual moot court competition does not have a list on its page, then it should be added there, not here. This is not a page about the specific competition, or even international moot court competitions, but simply a general article on mooting. If there is no page for the individual competition, then it can be created (and query how notable it is as to be worth including here if there is no page on it in the first place).
  2. A global perspective on mooting is already provided by the individual descriptions of mooting within each country. There is also already a list of international moot court competitions. To add a list of the particular winners and runners up over many years over those international moot competitions adds nothing of use to this article. It does not demonstrate a "global perspective", it merely lists winners.
  3. Some of these competitions are obscure in any event - why list the winners/runners up so many competitions? Again, what does it add to the article?
  4. I will indeed collapse the table for now. Janetcl (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems highly inappropriate to come onto this page and cut much of its content without any discussion first, particularly when those actually monitoring this page regularly have developed it as it stands with no significant complaint. Each competition does not already have its own page, and multiple championships is a unique distinction worthy of Wikipedia entry. If you believe it is not NPOV, the solution is to edit out the pov, not delete the entire section. To quote Janetcl from a prior edit (s)he has made: ". . . a significant change as this should be discussed on the talk page or flagged first." Trumpetbum8794 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the list of winners and the obscure section on records, but I did not consider that to be a significantly large part of the content. Moreover, as to there being no complaint, prior to my recent edits this page was a complete imprecise, unsourced, repetitive mess (and it still needs much work), so I do not attribute much weight to the issue not having been raised before in light of that. I did, obviously, initiate a discussion on the talk page - as to which, thank you for sharing your views.
In relation to the comments you have made on that issue:
  1. The "records" section is inherently non-NPOV, because it selected a random bunch of "records" to report. It was not worth salvaging, nor did I see an easy way to do so. But in any event, there was another reason for deleting that subsection; namely that it is obscure trivia. (To be clear, this comment does not relate to the list of winners, but rather to the deleted "records" subsection.)
  2. "Each competition does not already have its own page" - see my point 1 in my first reply above.
  3. "and multiple championships is a unique distinction worthy of Wikipedia entry" -- I don't agree. I think this is a general page on mooting and I think listing ever win of so many international competitions, which will only keep growing as the years go by, adds nothing to the article. However, I am prepared to let the matter rest for now. I don't propose to delete the table of winners, but to keep it collapsed.
Agree with Trumpetbum and Manderiko. It was extremely tedious to parse through all the sweeping changes. The table is fine as is; it is completely common in WP articles. Rangtengpa (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Your comment does not really address the points I have made above. However, each set of changes was made in a separate edit, if I recall, so I'm not sure why it should have been "extremely tedious" to parse through them. None of them are controversial other than the deletion of the competition winners table. As to the winners table, for now I will not delete it.Janetcl (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Your reply belies your own perception of how all of this works: "for now I will not delete it"... Rangtengpa (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed detailed info being avail on other pages is a nonstarter as a table in the general page gives that consolidated and comparative view not found elsewhere. Also nothing trivial or random about rare records - to take the contrary is the actual pov.Manderiko (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Echo the above as regards the table -- I would add it's the same reason why the first table exists as well. The collapse seems the best compromise. As for records, I'm not sure how one concludes there are no sources. There are. Chensiyuan (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Given what seems to be overwhelming agreement on this issue from everyone who expressed opinions on here (with the exception of the original editor), I re-added the records section to the page. If anyone else believes the records section should be removed, I encourage them to address it here instead of tearing up the page to match their own unique definition of relevance and nonPOV. If enough people return to support removal of the records page, we can have a dialogue then and certainly should remove it if the majority so agrees. Trumpetbum8794 (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Trumpetbum8794, it appears you have missed the discussion below which relates to the records subsection. There is no such overwhelming consensus as you have said, and on that basis I've reverted your edit. Please discuss in the subsection below. HarrietNine (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It is curious, to say the least, that both HarrietNine and Janetcl were accounts created only this month, with a particular interest in this page. In Harriet's case, the account was literally created hours ago. Manderiko (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

'Records' subsection[edit]

Quite distinct from the winners table, I thought I would reply to comments about the records subsection that has been deleted here, in the event there is still some dispute about it.

It looks to me that the records subsection (again, not the winners table) chose a number of records which clearly, but arbitrarily, paint the Singapore Management University in a positive light and at the top of these lists. The records included:

  • "Most number of international championships in a season"
  • "Most number of international championship finals in a season"
  • "Teams that have successfully defended a major international championship"

I have several observations about this:

  1. I see that Manderiko, who takes issue with its removal, has made hundreds of edits to the Singapore Management University School of Law article. With respect, that raises a question about whether that could have anything to do with his insistence on including such a list here. Is there a conflict to disclose?
  2. The peculiarly chosen records in this list were unsourced and at the moment original research. You would have to compare wins across all international competitions across 50+ years. How the chosen records can be verified from that list of records is totally unclear.
  3. The choice of what records to include, and how they were measured, is not clear (and appears to be non-NPOV as noted above). For example, why not most number of international championships won? What constitutes a "season"? When does the record begin? What competitions are being compared? Do they include transnational yet regional only competitions? Why is a "season" relevant or significant (this is not tennis). Why is it significant to note teams that have "successfully defended a major international championship"?
  4. This kind of intricate detail is in any event too obscure, I suggest, to warrant mentioning on this page. Janetcl (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Janetcl. These asserted "records" are trivial. Not only is the list unsourced, but there is no source indicating that the particular selection of records is itself a group worthy of such note. If there is no basis for believing that these particular records are the few that are significant enough to list here, then their listing is WP:UNDUE. bd2412 T 05:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Major/grand slam v. international distinction[edit]

There appears to be no objective criterion on the basis of which Major/grand slam and international competitions are distinguished. The ELSA/Jackson WTO Moot attracts 90-120 universities and is organized by the WTO itself. What pushes it out of the Major/grand slam category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.252.40 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)