Talk:People v. Anderson

Merge request

I think this page should be merged into People_v._Anderson, since both articles refer to the same court decision.--Chuckhoffmann 22:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:CA SC seal.jpg

File:CA SC seal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

---

California v. Anderson → People v. Anderson – Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

From the article itself and references in case law, the usual convention for naming such cases is People v. Defendant. If this is too ambiguous of a title, one might consider 'People v. Anderson (California)'. However, it appears that this case is currently the only one of any consequence to require its own page. Switchfoot (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The move would entail a loss of information without any compensating benefit. What are the guidelines, in this situation? See very many precedents in WP titles: "California v. X" or "X v. California". (Note: "Primary topic" is not a useful doctrine to invoke here; for one thing, it would tend to introduce inconsistencies in the titles of similar articles.) Noetica^Tea? 01:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  The guidelines are to use what is in reliable sources per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no ambiguity here and common usage in reliable sources overwhelmingly suggests "People v. Anderson". If you will notice, the precedents you cite are all cases that went before the US Supreme Court. Criminal cases that stay within California courts are titled "People v. Defendant" (in some states it is "State v. [Defendant]" or "Commonwealth v. [Defendant]"). Only when a case is appealed from the State Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court does it become renamed "[State name] v. [Defendant]"--Jiang (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: As an abbreviation for The People of the State of California, any of the three nouns is about equally legitimate. I'd expect California to be used except in a context that concerns only California cases. (Anyway the State is the plaintiff in fact, though it acts in the name of the People.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please refer to reliable sources on how the case name is abbreviated per WP:COMMONNAME (note my comments elsewhere on this page).--Jiang (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose See Talk:Trial of Conrad Murray for some discussion of a previous similar case. PatGallacher (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• That example is not applicable as that is referring to the trial and not just the legal precedent. Here, the topic of the article is about the legal precedent, not about the proceedings of the trial. The events are only background information here. We wouldn't rename the case Marbury v. Madison "Litigation by William Marbury" or something silly like that.--Jiang (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC) For another celebrity precedent, see People v. Jackson.--Jiang (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: A consistent naming convention would be the best regardless of what the legal convention is, but would it be a bad idea to have something like: People v. John Doe (Nevada) (1982), so that we try to preserve the convention as much as is reasonable and understandable to the average reader? — Switchfoot (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is not reason to add the disambiguating parenthetical here. There is no other case of note that is of the same name.--Jiang (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia needs to follow conventions used in reliable sources. Google Scholar shows 8380 results for "People v. Anderson" but only 25 results for "California v. Anderson." It is not up to Wikipedia to design its own conventions based on hypothetical ambiguities. The phrase "People v. Anderson" refers to this case, and this case alone. It would only have been known as "California v. Anderson" if it went before the US Supreme Court. The Wikipedia title is unusual, compared to other reliable sources.--Jiang (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Further statistics: Google Books shows 697,000 for "People v. Anderson" and 37,200 for "California v. Anderson". Some of the results for "California v. Anderson" other than from Wikipedia actually refer to other cases, such as "First Interstate Bank of California v. Anderson 2 Cal. App. 4th 596".--Jiang (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support "People v. [BLANK]" are the WP:COMMON for such cases, as all suits are done in the name of the people, as per the California Constitution. And such case names are treated as proper (compound) nouns, and traditionally disambiguation is only needed if there are conflicting subject articles that share nouns, proper or otherwise. (Therefore, disambiguation, i.e. (California), is not needed and should not be used as it only complicates wikilinks.) Yes, the jurisdiction is California, but just like many legal topics, the jurisdiction is not needed to be explicitly stated in every, or indeed any, of their titles, and is best left to the article body (again, unless there are multiple subject articles sharing such a name.) One should note, that such naming procedures are different for other jurisdictions or indeed cases not brought in the name of the People of California, so obviously such cases may (and usually do) have different common names. (Therefore, the naming of Marbury v. Madison is irrelevant.) Also, cases usually only get such common names when they are referenced by those that are both aware of, and deferential to, such common naming procedures for a case; some cases are in the public mind but of legal insignificance (i.e. the Trial of Conrad Murray) are written without such knowledge and/or deference, while others are not in the public's mind but have legal significance and are, for example those being used as precedent by legal professionals (i.e. People v. Anderson). (Therefore, the non-standard, uncommon naming of the Trial of Conrad Murray is irrelevant.) Int21h (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Jiang's and Int21h's rationales are compelling. Jenks24 (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.