Talk:Sugar bowl (legal maxim)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Sugar bowl (legal maxim). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fclr.org/docs/2006fedctslrev4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Mar-a-Lago and more recent [post-2006] evidentiary sugar bowls of documentation
The sugar bowl doctrine would appear to be current in view of the searches in Mar-a-Lago during August 2022 [in succession to the 6 January riots of 2021].

Documents cannot fit in sugar bowls - however; sugar bowls fit in incinerators [or their 21st century shredding equivalent - destruction of evidence].

And I wonder if people have been looking at other  and   articles.

Is the 2006 article cited and summarised here the best/most neutral way to be reading about sugar bowls and understanding the concept in a Wikipedia way? --114.72.47.174 (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC).

Cannot find sources; is the topic notable?
There appear to be no, or at most extremely few, reliable sources on this topic; the entire article appears to develop from a figure of speech used in the single currently cited source (from 2006). I get no indication from web searches that the term is widely used or notable. (The article already has a template calling for better citations. I think I'll add a 'notability' template once I figure out how to combine templates.) Teacher1850 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)