Talk:Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013)

Feedback
Hello,. I read through it. It's good work! Again, I'm really not used to grading quality by Wikipedia's criteria, so I'm only going to raise it to C-class. Maybe someone else in WP:SCOTUS would be a better judge. You can ask for more eyes on their talk page, for sure.

I find myself wondering what this house looked like so, a picture of it would be a good addition if one exists. I'm also left wondering if this case has been cited in other major cases. The law professors' prognostication is all well and good, but it's been 9 years. How have admiralty courts actually responded to this ruling that changed how they're supposed to determine what a vessel even is?

The main thing I would say is that the way you have structured the references is unusual. IMHO, almost none of these sources is long enough to justify specifying specific pages. Nor are they referenced often rough to justify the Rp page numbering that interrupts the text. For example, I agree that ...are vessels under admiralty law,[15]: 977  but less so in other regards.[15]: 995 needs two citations, but relying on the reader to follow the link and go to those page numbers makes that statement too vague for Wikipedia. I think it would be better to either introduce both of the arguments you're referring to in the text and use a page-number-free citation, or to use two citations pointing to that source which quote the arguments you're referring to in the ref. lethargilistic (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The opinion includes a picture of the floating home, which can be seen in File:Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013).pdf on page 19, but since SCOTUS doesn't have to worry about silly things like copyrights, they don't actually say where they got the picture. As such I'm treating it as de minimis usage of copyrighted material as far as its inclusion in the PDF is concerned, and thus inappropriate to crop and use an image of its own. But, fear not! I anticipated this a while ago and reached out to Lozman, who he says he has images he can CC-license. (And he himself isn't sure who actually owns the copyright to the picture in the opinion.) So I should be able to get that uploaded soon, just have to touch base with him.
 * I agree that the impact section should say more than those law review articles. That and the opinion section are the two I most feel are incomplete. Will take a stab at that sometime soon. Probably once I'm done with my overhaul of... drumroll... Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018).
 * Generally I try to cite page numbers for anything long enough to have multiple parts. But I'll concede the rps may not have turned out as I'd hoped. Annoyingly, Extension:Cite really doesn't give any option for citing multiple pages of the same source that doesn't have a major downside: takes up space in the body, sfns risk confusing readers as to what the sources are and are hard to maintain for editors unfamiliar with them, and both s and the Bluebook-esque approach of full citation first/short citation later have the problem of making an article look like it's citing more sources than it is. But I've got an idea of how to convert this to that last approach without going too overboard (like some legal articles one sees with 20 "Doe, p. 3", "Doe, p. 4", etc. cites). Will try, and we'll see how it looks. (On the note of citations, by the way, I've held off on moving the cite news cites over to bluebook website for reasons explained at Template talk:Bluebook website. Thoughts welcome there.)
 * -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 08:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 08:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, refs should now be more standard. Thanks for the edits. Can I ask, though, about the removal of "thought to be the only person to bring two unrelated cases before the Supreme Court"? The cited article cites Pamela S. Karlan who, while perhaps biased in this case, would also generally be considered a reliable commentator on the topic of Supreme Court litigants. It's not an airtight citation, which is why I didn't put the claim in the encyclopedia's voice, but I also don't see a claim to the contrary anywhere. But you're saying it's "Strictly incorrect"; can you elaborate? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I know of an explicit counterexample who had even more cases at the Supreme Court. Gene Buck was the appellant in Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. and Buck v. Gallagher, which means he's tied with Lozman by default. Furthermore, he was the respondent in Watson v. Buck, Gibbs v. Buck, and Marsh v. Buck. Most of these had to do with whether or not the practices of ASCAP were legal under copyright and antitrust law. (And IMO the Court did several awkward Motivated Reasonings to decide them in ASCAP's favor, but that's neither here nor there.) The lawyer was just wrong. It happens. lethargilistic (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Image
It would be very neat if an image of the house boat could be added to the article, even if its an external image. It would add a lot of context to the article. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)