Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Proposal for finding cases.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Improvements to searching for judicial decisions. Please remember that the idea lab is a place to float ideas, so this isn't necessarily an actual proposal yet. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for cross-referencing the discussion; I doubt many people would've seen it otherwise. I'll reply over there in a moment. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Standardizing article leads

Hi. I started WP:SCOTUSWORK recently. I'm on a standardization kick lately, so I'd like to attack article leads soonish. By "leads" I really only mean the introductory sentence right now. This is the format I've been going with lately:

Foo v. Bar, 123 U.S. 456 (7890), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that...

Does anyone have any issues with this format or have suggestions for a better format? Ideally nearly every article would start consistently.

For older cases, there's the parenthetical to deal with. Personally, I'm kind of in favor of removing the "(1 Cranch)" part and putting it into the infobox, as applicable. Any thoughts on this? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I see two major questions here. Should the case cite be a link to Case citation, or should it use the {{ussc}} template? And should we refer to the case in the present, or in the past?
Regarding what the cite links to in the opening sentence, I like the idea of linking to Case citation. The {{ussc}} template is going to appear in the infobox anyway — and the average non-legal-research-savvy reader (to whom the cite will likely be meaningless) will probably benefit from a link sending him to an explanation of what this bizarre abbreviation means.
I'm less certain about whether a case should be described by "is" or "was". My gut feeling is to say "was" — probably because I'm thinking of a case as a process, culminating in a decision, which constitutes an historical event that took place in the past. A case described by "is" feels to me like something that is still pending (for example, NFIB v. Sebelius definitely "is" a Supreme Court case right now). If we're going to say a case "is" because its effect persists into the present, then would we end up having to say that (for example) Plessy v. Ferguson "was" a Supreme Court case, whereas Brown v. Board of Education (which overruled Plessy) "is" a Supreme Court case?
As for whether the reporter info (for old cases) should be included in the opening sentence, I'm leaning toward saying it should remain, on the grounds that a minimally correct pre-United States Reports cite is supposed to include this as far as I'm aware. If Bluebook and/or other accepted citation standards say it's OK to omit identifying the reporter on old cases, however, I'd go along with that. — Richwales 05:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply. :-)
Shortly after posting this message here, I tripped across User:Agradman/"draft" of my post RE citation style, which discusses the various pros and cons of each citation approach. I created {{scite}} a long time ago as a means of standardizing inline case citations. The idea was to move away from {{ussc}} within prose as it links to an external source (and broadly the template's functionality was and is continues to be stretched in all kinds of different directions). I've largely abandoned {{scite}}, but it may make sense to start using it again, if only in article leads. I'm not sure. (Personally, I'm more concerned with standardization itself rather than which particular format/link/template is used.)
Regarding verb tense, I've favored "is" as the case continues to be a case, regardless of the passage of time or where the case happens to be in its life cycle. "Plessy v. Ferguson, [cite], is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that..." will always be true. We're stating what the Court held in the first sentence and a case is always a case (right?). For me, it's not about the active effect of the case, it's a matter of being as precise as possible. Plessy v. Ferguson is a U.S. Supreme Court case. Using "was" suggests to me that something has happened and it no longer is a U.S. Supreme Court case.
I don't know what Bluebook or anyone else recommends regarding the old reporter name. Given that there's an exact replacement (that is, you can represent "1 Cranch" as "5 U.S." unambiguously), services such as Google Scholar and LexisNexis seem to favor using the "standard" citation (and they list the alternate citation in the section with alternate citations, if such a section exists). Again, my goal is to achieve harmony among the articles. I'd be perfectly content using a parenthetical only with older cases, as long as all older cases use a parenthetical. Looking at a specific example, "Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), is a landmark case..." does feel strange to me, however. For the same reason we don't specify the full party names in the first sentence, I think not specifying an ancient (and unused) citation format is a good idea. But this might be another reason to use a template such as {{scite}}, so that aspects such as the link to case citation or whether to include the old reporter can be modified in a central location rather than requiring thousands of individual article edits. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

On the "is" versus "was", I think it's tied to another issue of "case" versus "decision" or "opinion," which terms I think we should try to use more precisely, particularly in the intro. A case or lawsuit is or was a process, as Richwales noted above, while an opinion is and always is an existing document (even if its holding is later overruled). Foo v. Bar, No. 00-001 refers to a case as a whole, the lawsuit identified by its court docket number. Foo v. Bar, 123 U.S. 456 (7890), by contrast, cites to a specific opinion in that case, and that opinion is the reason why there is an article. This is particularly true because the opinion is typically going to be on a narrow legal issue, while the case (which would probably not have been notable but for that SCOTUS opinion) was about an event or issue that the Court did not comment on at all and the allegations may never have even been litigated if the case is resolved on a threshold issue. So we should start with something like "Foo v. Bar, 123 U.S. 456 (7890) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In a case involving a federal law against importing 8-track tapes, the Court held that..." "Decision" might be a better word to use than "opinion" in the intro perhaps because it's less likely to get misunderstood by lay readers.

In articles that cover a case with multiple opinions, start with something like Foo v. Bar was a lawsuit in the United States involving a Montana-state law against harboring unlicensed marmots within city limits. Initially filed in 2005 as a challenge against the state by a Marmot farmer, the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States on appeal at three separate stages, generating opinions by that court first on the plaintiff's standing; second, on the registration requirement's constitutionality under the Aquatic Mammals Clause of the U.S. Constitution; and finally, on the burden of proof consistent with due process." I think one problem we have in case law articles sometimes is jumping to specifics too soon rather than setting down some context first, so I think it's often good to simply state what area of law the opinion was about before getting into details of the holding.

On what the intro citation should link to, I think it would be more helpful to link to the article on the specific court reporter (Foo v. Bar, 123 U.S. 456 (7890)) rather than the general article on case citations, that is if we're not going to directly link to a full text copy of the opinion. postdlf (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding verb tense, I favor "is", although I do realize that the case for "is" is stronger for a decision than a lawsuit, but I think "Foo v. Bar is a decision ..." is a more likely and typical article start than "Foo v. Bar was a lawsuit ..." I have started a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Verb tense for legal cases and I encourage comments there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So we should start with something like "Foo v. Bar, 123 U.S. 456 (7890) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In a case involving a federal law against importing 8-track tapes, the Court held that..."

I'm actually quite opposed to this practice. I feel that the introductory sentence should be as direct as possible about what the case was about. I think it does a disservice to the reader to be intentionally vague. For example:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that virtually everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen.
versus
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
To me, the first example sentence is vastly better than the second. The subsequent sentences can explain the specifics. The reader really wants to know what this case was about in the first sentence. Yes, the case may have involved a particular Constitutional amendment or Clause or whatever else, but what was the case actually about? What did the Court hold?
Getting even more pedantic, there should be two commas (one before and one after the citation), correct?
And do you have any opinion on including "1 Cranch" and the like in the intro sentence? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I think for the Wong Kim Arm example above, your way may work better though I find its lack of context bothersome (according to what? the Constitution? a federal statute then in force? international custom?). There may be instances in which trying to be too "direct" in the intro sentence just makes it cumbersome, so let's just say "it depends" on whatever avoids overly complicated run-on sentences, while still presenting the most important context up front.

Yes, there should be a comma before and after the citation.

Given that the infobox has a field specifically for parallel citations, I think it's just distracting to lay readers and unnecessary to include the old reporter of decisions names in the main text intro, no matter how much legal history pedants such as ourselves may enjoy doing so. The U.S. Reports cite is an unambiguous identifier. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As pedantically noted below on this page (and now noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Resources#Pro-tips), the U.S. Reports citation is not an unambiguous identifier. Though it often is. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to case citation

I agree with starting with the title of the case in bold and italics, followed by the case citation set off by commas. I do not agree with linking the entire case citation to the article case citation—or even linking to that article in the lead (as opposed to the infobox) at all. In my view, such is no more useful than linking every "v." to versus.

What this comes down to is whether that single article is soooo helpful and important that it needs to be linked first and linked prominently in every single article about a legal case. In my view, it does not. First, many readers arriving in an article about a legal case will know what a case citation is, at least enough so that it does not help them to link to that article. It is not a best practice to assume that every reader of an article arrived there using the random article button. Even a reader who knows nothing about the law will eventually intuit that it must be some kind of citation because it includes a year. From the surrounding context, they are likely to recognize that year as the year the case was decided, and given that the article is about a text, they are also to likely understand that the content that precedes the year is some kind of citation. Even if they do not know how to use that citation to look up the case (which the case citation article is far from guaranteed to teach). Second, for those who do not, that article is not immediately helpful. It covers case citations globally, from the perspective of many jurisdictions. It will not necessarily lead them to any useful knowledge, such as how to find the text of the opinion that brought them to that article. Third, even if the case citation article is helpful, it is already linked prominently by default in the Infobox which accompanies all SCOTUS cases, as well as many of the infoboxes for cases from other courts.

In summary, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether this case citation article is so useful and important as to be the most prominent link in every article about a case. A blue link yearns to clicked on, and thus blue links can distracting. Prominent, non-substantive bluelinks detract from the substantive bluelinks and from the non-linked content. Think of it as triage on the battlefield. There are many things that we would like the article to teach the reader, but it will inevitably only teach them few if any. Is it more important for a reader of Roe v. Wade to learn about substantive due process, or is it more important for them to learn about the Commonwealth Law Reports? Perhaps if we at least had an article about U.S. case citations, the usefulness of the link would improve somewhat, but my overall view would remain unchanged. Savidan 21:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly of the "I don't really care" view. I'm much more concerned with standardization of the citations than I am concerned about where they link to. In this vein, I created Template:Scite to attempt to achieve standardization. Template:Scite is mostly a less bloated version of Template:Ussc. Once every article lead is using Template:Scite, it will be trivial to change from a case citation link to a different link or no link at all or multiple links. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
We could turn the "citations" header in the SCOTUS case infobox into a link to case citation. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I think postdif's suggestion is a reasonable alterative. Savidan 17:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As for template {Scite}, it appears to replace the link to case citation with a link to United States Reports. Thus, it again begs the question of whether think article is so important and useful that it should be linked first and prominently in every article about a U.S. Supreme Court case. Savidan 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates

While I'm at it, I also don't agree with the use of citation templates, whether for the first citation in the intro or for the footnotes. First, they are a serious violation of the WYSIWYG principle. It is very strange to me that users who are very concerned with the accessibility of legal articles to non-legal readers are not also concerned with the accessibility of editing legal articles to non-Wikipedians. I spend a lot of time off-wiki trying to persuade other law students and lawyers to contribute to Wikipedia, and one thing I often here is that when they click the edit button everything looks like gibberish. Second, there is no need to impose a uniform citation style across all U.S. legal articles. While I myself use and advocate the use of the Bluebook, and have begun to draft a rough draft suggestion here, the general rule of WP:CITEVAR remains one of citation pluralism. Not just in legal articles, but across all articles, Wikipedia accepts any generally accepted citation system. In cases of dispute, the citation system of the first major contributor is to prevail regardless of the relative merits of other systems. I could go on, but I think these two reasons suffice. In the spirit of pluralism, I perhaps could tolerate the organic use of these templates by other contributors, but would frown on any effort to impose them with uniformity, especially when added by to articles by users who have not significantly contributed to that article otherwise. Savidan 17:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

When reading your post, it's difficult to distinguish between the legal community's use of citation (e.g., "123 U.S. 456") and Wikipedia's use of citation (i.e., <ref>hello there</ref>). When you say you "don't agree with the use of citation templates," what are you referring to? Are you referring to templates such as Template:Scite or are you referring to citation styles used in particular articles?
I agree that clicking edit is often confusing for new (and established) users. This is a software problem and it will hopefully be addressed by the introduction of a visual editor. And I agree that standardization between articles isn't as important as standardization and consistency within a particular article.
I don't believe anyone here (or elsewhere) is advocating for a particular citation style in U.S. legal articles. There are particular conventions that Wikipedia follows and that should be followed in U.S. legal articles such as not abbreviating most words in the page title. Parts of your draft at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/U.S. legal citations/Bluebook seem to directly contradict the rest of the Wikipedia manual of style.
Given some of the ambiguities in what you've written here, it's unclear to me what exactly you're opposing and why.
I'd also say that your post has hints of article ownership that I don't think are directly compatible with the wiki philosophy. In particular, "especially when added by to articles by users who have not significantly contributed to that article otherwise" is completely irrelevant and nearly actively harmful to the wiki philosophy. Anyone is welcome to contribute to and improve any article here. And the view that "the citation system of the first major contributor is to prevail," while somewhat currently accepted as a half-ass compromise here due to the inherent subjectivity of picking a citation style for a particular article, is rather stupid and thoughtless when considered in the context of wiki articles and how they develop. Their organic nature will invariably lead to inconsistency; some of this inconsistency is perfectly appropriate to address in subsequent edits. That's the great beauty of a wiki. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I am referring only to templates like {Scite}. Neither 123 U.S. 456 nor <ref> violate the WYSIWYG principle. Specifically, I was referring to your statements above about "achieve standardization" and "Once every article lead is using Template:Scite, it will be trivial to change . . ." above. If I have misunderstood your meaning, and you were only suggesting standarization by persuasion, then I apologize. As for article ownership, I think there is a difference between article ownership and what WP:CITEVAR has in mind. To the extent that it is "ownership" to ask later contributors to follow the already established citation style, that is exactly what WP:CITEVAR has in mind. And the disapproval with edits that do no more than change the established citation style is quite analogous to to the well-established disapproval with edits that do no more than change from American to British spellings. It's not that the first contributor owns the article, it's just that the value of changing to a "better" citation system is so miniscule that it is outweighed by the dischord that, experience teaches, inevitably arises from such edits.
Oh, and as for my suggested Bluebook MOS page, I do note that it is still a work in progress. I welcome any comments you or others might have. I am surprised by your claim that it directly contradicts the rest of the MOS in light of the fact that WP:CITEVAR explicitly disclaims any "house" citation style. Most of the MOS either deals exclusively with above-the-line content or else is phrased in such general terms that it does not rule out the use of any given citation style. Savidan 18:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
And, if the avoidance of dischord rationale does not work for you there is also another important value in play here: ensuring that the citation styles chosen work well in practice. That is best served by having citation choices made organically as content is created, rather than imposed uniformly by mass edits. Savidan 19:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Case talkpages

What is/are the correct template(s) for the talkpage of a newly created case article? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I always use these:
{{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases|class=|importance=}}
You can assess the article if you're feeling crazy. I've updated WP:SCOTUS/ACG with this info. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Fletcher v. Peck

More eyes here, please; there's a persistent IP that is making three nonconstructive edits (in my view) for every constructive edit, primarily by pruning what looks like valid and relevant information, all without any edit summaries. I've warned the IP once for blanking, but the editor is making more subtle changes than that. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Weird. I agree with the revert. It might be subtle vandalism, but I guess we should try to AGF. ;-) I'll try to keep an out on the article and that IP. We may also have a subpage somewhere to track articles like this (/Article alerts is something else, but maybe there's a "watchlist" page somewhere...). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Glad to see you're still active.

Abbreviations in SCOTUS case article titles

[This post was moved here from my talk page. I still haven't had the time/energy to properly reply, but as it's of general interest to the WikiProject and as I desperately need to archive my talk page, I'm moving the post here. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)]

While well-intended, I am not sure the crusade against the use of abbreviations in Supreme Court-case article titles you started this afternoon is fully supported by policy, or indeed wise.

For one thing, you're inconsistent. You seem to feel that "Co." should be spelled out, yet "Inc." should not be (What's the difference?). Ampersands should be spelled out. Except when they're not. I could almost start a pool on what you'll do, or not do, with this one

For another, there is no blanket prohibition on using abbreviations in article titles. WP:TITLEFORMAT says "Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation". I would ask that you consider the latter clause in light of what these articles are about. If they were articles about the entities in question, yes, you would be right not to abbreviate them.

But they are not. They are articles about cases they have litigated, that take the form of written works with a title format that is chosen by the Court and either used as is by the popular press and law reviews when discussing and reporting it, or modified (Pickering and Brown sued different Boards of Education, after all, but we usually don't include the qualifying information. In this regard I consider them beyond the reach of our naming conventions (Would you change the title of this article?)

Per that, I think we should stick with either the Court's title or the common name if it is apparent that the legal community prefers one variant to a significant degree. If that means preserving some quaint and archaic abbreviations like "Mfg.", then so be it. Until we come up with some clearer policy in this department. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

George Anastaplo, "immortalized" by Black

George Anastaplo was denied admission to the Illinois Bar because he refused to answer [formal] questions about whether he have membership in the Communist Party of the USA, on First Amendment grounds.

Justice Hugo Black's dissent In re Anastaplo "would immortalize Anastaplo", exclaimed Justice Brennan upon reading it. It was read, by Black's own instructions, at Black's funeral service.

The new article George Anastaplo deserves reading and improvement, particularly by those with books or articles on Black. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox U.S. legislation: declared unconstitutional?

I'd like to draw attention to a question I've just posed at Template talk:Infobox U.S. legislation#Declared unconstitutional?. I am seeking the best way to reflect instances in which the U.S. Supreme Court has declared portions of legislation to be unconstitutional. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks,  —Grollτech (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Docket Numbers

Docket Numbers should be used e.g. 77-528 for Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying no, but why?--Chaser (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The infobox creates a direct link to the actual SCOTUS docket, if one is available. It's just good editing and provides additional resources for our readers. GregJackP Boomer! 17:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
PS, the docket number is almost always available on sites that have the actual opinion text - it is the way cases are styled. GregJackP Boomer! 17:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Docket numbers are always listed in any court opinion (and any order or other filing in that case) because that's how a court internally identifies a case. To a reader, I can't say it's very important at least for the older opinions for which the Court no longer has docket information on their website and for which a full case reporter citation is available. But I also don't see a point to not having it in the infobox, and don't think anyone should go out of their way to remove it. If you feel it should be added, go for it. If anyone removes it, come back here for a discussion. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I've always viewed docket numbers as somewhat ephemeral (as opposed to canonical) and as a tool of necessity (only used when a proper case citation is unavailable). I think I've generally removed the docket number once there was an official case citation from U.S. Reports available (i.e., only using docket numbers for very recent cases). I imagine Template:Infobox SCOTUS case somewhat endorses this approach.
For older cases (prior to 2000, perhaps even later), all of the auto-generated links completely fail, making inclusion of a docket number even more dubious; e.g., "77-528" would link to <http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/77-528.htm> (a broken, unhelpful link) if used in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent, sometimes using them, sometimes not. But if they don't link to the actual docket at the SCOTUS website, I remove them. GregJackP Boomer! 11:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Court split in lede

I think it would be helpful to include the court's decisional split in the lede, like this: "Case name, XXX U.S. YYY (ZZZZ), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in (a(n) x to y) (unanimous) decision that ..." Lahaun (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Typically it should go somewhere in the intro section, but the very first sentence is often already awkwardly long as it is, without cramming in yet another fact. And the vote is not going to be more important than what the decision actually held. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Like this edit of yours is I think a bad way to handle it; defining the article's subject as a "6-3 Supreme Court decision" in the very first sentence before the article even identifies what the case was about really places undue emphasis on the vote and thus might even be confusing to some readers who may then think that it has some kind of legal consequence. A subsequent paragraph in the intro should instead summarize the different opinions in the case, such as a majority opinion delivered by so and so, joined by X justices, concurrences, dissent, etc. postdlf (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteUser:Postdlf also wrote, "Crickets [sic]. And I see we have discussed this before here, or at least, I tried to discuss and you didn't bother. After you added it for the first time to the intro sentence of this article and I removed it back in March, you asserted your opinion without explanation, I gave a lengthy explanation of why I thought it was not a good idea, and you never elaborated or otherwise followed through. So I think it was inappropriate for you to restore your edit months later, contra WP:BRD, and without even attempting to discuss first, so I'm going to remove it again absent any substantive comment from you, @Lahaun:, as to why it's a good idea, not simply that you want it. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)"
@Postdlf: Say, does that confrontational, didactic style usually work well for you? Here's the thing, starting, perhaps with Bush v. Gore, Scotus decisions have increasingly fractured on ideological grounds, making the court split more significant in recent decisions than it has been in the past. In fact, I would like to see an article that just lists the court's 5-4 decisions. One of the first things I look for when referencing a Scotus decision is the split, and I find it very helpful to have it in the lede. While you're right that the split has no direct legal significance, it does have a significant political relevance. Did you ever wonder why Brown v. Board of Education was a 9-0 case? There is also the fact that a 5-4 decision may be more at risk for reversal after a change of the court's membership. I don't object to your suggestion for a separate paragraph in the lede stating who joined what opinions. Why didn't you make that change instead of just reverting my edits? The goal, after all, is to make articles better, not win arguments. (BTW, thanks for showing me the ping function.) Lahaun (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. The last revert was yours, I let it stand to discuss on the article's talk page as your edit summary had insisted, and then you didn't show up to respond just as you hadn't back in March when this thread was opened. As it seems you say you'd be satisfied that as long as it's in the intro somewhere, and my only problem is with having it awkwardly shoehorned into an article's very first sentence (even before what the case is about, no less) as you were doing, there's no conflict left here. I had said this very thing back in March, but again, whatever. So from now on, just add it into a lower paragraph that describes who delivered/authored what opinions and what the vote count was and there shouldn't be any problem. postdlf (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the split does not need to be mentioned in the first sentence. I think exceptions can be made where it is shown that the split itself is highly discussed in media reports of the case, for example where it is remarked on as being a 5-4 split or a unanimous decision. Almost any other kind of split is going to be of little interest. bd2412 T 18:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
What BD2412 said. The only time a split needs to be summarized in the lede is when it is significant, discussed in the media, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 20:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment

A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead. GregJackP Boomer! 14:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl FAC

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive2. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 18:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter peer review

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter is listed for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/archive1. I would appreciate it if any of you would take a look at it and comment (if you have the time). Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject U.S. Supreme Court Cases At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes at Wong Kim Ark

Hi. A discussion has started at United States v. Wong Kim Ark (one of our Featured Articles) regarding how the article should treat the question of birthright citizenship for US-born children of illegal aliens. Interested people might wish to go have a look and get involved. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in the Americas may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:United States Speedy Trial Act case law

Category:United States Speedy Trial Act case law, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Merging into Category:Speedy Trial Clause case law. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Red links at List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment

Generally speaking, lists such as the list of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment should not contain red links: if the entry is not notable enough to have a Wiki article, it is not notable enough to be included. On the other hand, what belongs on this list is pretty well defined, and it would be incorrect to purge it out of hand. So, I would like to propose creating the missing articles, with a deadline set to de-wikify rather than delete any remaining red links. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You're assuming incorrectly that all notable SCOTUS cases already have articles. Long standing consensus is that all SCOTUS cases that generated an opinion of the Court (at least in the modern era) are notable (in contrast to the thousands per year disposed of by summary order). So the redlinks stay, without a deadline, both as necessary to the list's topic and as a guide for editors as to what articles remain to be created. postdlf (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In addition to what Postdlf said, WP:Redlink states: "Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages or templates." That indicates that lists do commonly contain redlinks. GregJackP Boomer! 22:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
What I am proposing is that we write those articles. Why this hostility? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"Hostility"? No, we're just telling you not to remove the redlinks by de-wikifying them. We're certainly not going to discourage you from creating articles. postdlf (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
What Postdlf said. No hostility was meant. Just don't de-link them. GregJackP Boomer! 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Bluebook citation style

For anyone that might be interested, there is a Request for Comment on the appropriateness of the Bluebook citation style for Wikipedia articles at Photography is Not a Crime. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 07:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging or Clarifying the Case Law and Lawsuit Categories

I started a discussion about the case law and lawsuits category trees in the WikiProject Law page. Your input for this conversation would be welcome. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Institute for Justice

I recently updated and expanded the Wikipedia article on the Institute for Justice, the public advocacy law firm that litigated Kelo v. City of New London and four other cases at the Supreme Court. I am not an attorney, and I would appreciate any review and comments from your perspective. The Institute for Justice is similar to the ACLU, but with a libertarian philosophy. This article is not currently a part of this WikiProject, but I think it would fit here. Thanks- James Cage (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Inactive threads and notifications to since closed discussions

  1. There are several inactive threads on this page.
  2. Some have had no replies for months, even almost a year.
  3. They are cluttering up this page.
  4. This makes it more difficult for others to respond to more important threads.
  5. I tried archiving some, one by one, that were inactive, for example notices of FAC discussions or deletion discussions for pages that were since closed.
  6. This was summarily reverted for all edits together, instead of picking particular threads that were still active to place back on this page.
  7. I feel that revert was not constructive.
  8. I propose that inactive threads that have not been responded to, and threads notifying users of discussions elsewhere that have since been closed, should be archived.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Revert and post to my user talk page by MZMcBride, at DIFF followed by DIFF. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
MZMcBride has a valid point; automated archival is preferable. Currently, the bot settings on this page will archive threads after a year of inactivity. That seems overly long to me; what do others think would be a reasonable length of time before archiving something? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I think one year is way too long, Richwales. Three months is better. However, manual archival should not be forbidden. It should be permitted, for example, for threads that notify users of discussions which have since been closed and are therefore irrelevant. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. This is a pretty slow-moving talk page and I think encouraging discussion is a good thing. For example, your first archival here archived an important discussion about standardizing page leads. It had a relatively recent comment (from June), so the bot has appropriately not archived it, as instructed. If a thread doesn't have any activity for a year, it'll get archived by one of the archive bots. However we're not drowning in discussion here and there's no deadline for action. :-) Plus I've generally found that people involved with the law usually move on much slower timelines. Discussions spanning over weeks or months aren't necessarily bad, especially now that we can ping users.
I don't have a problem with manually archiving truly resolved threads (such as old notifications), though it'll probably make the archives more difficult to read as they'll become non-linear. That concern is probably not worth worrying about, though. Ongoing discussions, even if they haven't been touched in the past few months, are still relevant to the work we're doing here. Archiving them prematurely just creates more work later to re-establish a dialogue about what we want to do.
Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
MZMcBride, I would like to continue to use the archival tool to archive threads one at a time that deal with issues that have since become irrelevant, such as referring to discussions which have since been closed elsewhere, such as closed FAC discussions. — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
For one-off requests, I think using that tool here is fine. I'd rather not see anyone making many needless consecutive edits here, however. (Useful consecutive editing is fine, of course!) I'll archive the threads that look dead to me manually in a minute. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. I do think this particular talk page was getting a bit stale. Long big ole' talk pages discourage users from active participation. :( — Cirt (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've used the tool to archive some threads. I only archived threads this time that refer to closed discussions. Thank you, MZMcBride, for your understanding of my usage of the tool, for this particular purpose! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC).

Hustler Magazine case, Requested move

Please see Talk:Hustler_Magazine,_Inc._v._Falwell#Requested_move_8_February_2015.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

I would like to spin off most of Susan_B._Anthony_List#Driehaus_political_ad_litigation into another article, which I'd like to title, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. This is going to be argued later this month at SCOTUS, and could have consequences for political speech far beyond the parties. P.J. O'Rourke has gotten involved as an amicus and filed a very funny brief. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I went looking for the article the other day to find out more and to note the upcoming oral argument, and was surprised it didn't exist yet.
I find Ohio AG Mike DeWine's position interesting; his office has filed, in his name, a brief defending the statute, in its capacity defending the Ohio Election Commission. DeWine himself, and in his office's name, has also filed a brief opposing the statute, drafted by pro bono attorneys from the West Virginia University College of Law, with an ethical wall between himself and all of his staff on the defending brief.
BTW, for anyone else interested, (all?) briefs are here, including the Ohio AG briefs and O'Rourke's brief referred to above. TJRC (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
O'Rourke's brief is freaking hilarious! I can smell DYK! Bearian (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS articles needing some attention

(I posted this at WikiProject_Law, where it was pointed out that this would be a better venue.)


I'm working on a CCI and see a few articles involving SCOTUS cases. I ran the copyright question for one Follett v. Town of McCormick by user:Newyorkbrad, because I wasn't sure whether the material coming from the Findlaw reference was original by Findlaw (which would be a problem) or simply material copied from the case (which should be public domain). While I can use his answer to help me with some of the others, I note some other concerns, and I am hoping there is someone interested in articles about Supreme Court cases who might want to do a little article improvement.

I realize wikiprojects often design their own standard formats for articles, but I think a general rule applying everywhere is that the lead is supposed to summarize material in the body. In each of these articles, I think this is not done, and in my opinion is not a trivial omission. The lead states the Supreme Court conclusion but the body typically does not, and further, I see nothing indicating the reasoning for the decision, which I would think should be a fairly important piece of information.

In at least one case, there is no reference, so some help in adding a reference would be appreciated.

Some of the cases are:

My guess is that the editor was using a cookie-cutter approach, not necessarily bad if the format is sufficiently robust, but many seem to be lacking important aspects.

My narrow concern is to make sure there are no copyright issues, (so if you see any, please ping me so I can address them) but I'm also hoping that some member of this Wikiproject will want to beef up some of these articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Per curiam Links in SCOTUS-list Template

Is there any way in the SCOTUS-list template to link to a section of a term's per curiam opinion page for a case which does not have or warrant its own standalone page? For example, on the 2013 opinions page, many opinions have red links, but they have sections on the 2013 per curiam opinions page. I see Ford Motor Co. v. United States links automatically through a redirect, but, directly above it, Stanton v. Sims does not even though it's right above it on the per curiam page. Aaronjbaylis (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As the exisitng links show, you can redirect to a specific section. I just created one for Stanton. postdlf (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Redirects are a bit annoying to create and edit, but a link such as <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanton_v._Sims&action=edit> should show the basic idea. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion#Harder to file class actions about whether or not the article has appropriate reliable references for including this sentence at the end of the lead section: "By permitting contracts that exclude class action arbitration, the high court's decision will make it much harder for consumers to file class action lawsuits." Interested editors are encouraged to contribute their opinions there. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Menominee Tribe v. United States is Today's Featured Article

Menominee Tribe v. United States is Today's Featured Article and was brought to featured status by members of this project. GregJackP Boomer! 01:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Peer review request

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock has been submitted for peer review in preparation for a run at featured article. If you are interested, please go the the peer review page and help out. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

FA review for Sonia Sotomayor

This page is currently at GA since 2009 which was well-written then but lacking a Supreme Court section to justify an FA nomination. Sotomayor now has 5 years experience on the Court and 3 new books on the Roberts Court have added new light to her full biography. During the past month a new Supreme Court section has been written for the article, and all 300 references in the article have been brought up to date as to link status. Other users have already started assisting with other refinements. Welcome to all comments and critiques either to the Sotomayor Talk page or my Talk page. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

United States v. Ramsey (1926) FA nomination

United States v. Ramsey (1926) has been nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Ramsey (1926)/archive1 for featured article. The case is about the Osage Indian murders in the 1920s and one of the first murder investigations of the Bureau of Investigations, which later became the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If interested, please stop by and add your comments, either for, against, or neutral. GregJackP Boomer! 19:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"Justice Scalia" or just "Scalia"?

I invite editors to contribute to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#"Justice Scalia" or just "Scalia"?, which discusses whether articles should refer to Justices and Judges as "Justice Doe" or simply by their last name alone after the first mention of their name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Kagama Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Kagama is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Kagama/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases/Archive_11&oldid=1137361160"