Talk:United States v. Grimaud

Rewriting
The article, as indicated by the 'lacks encyclopedic tone' tag, was pretty poorly written and had clearly POV material throughout. I've removed all but the last section of the article body (which were poorly sourced to begin with) and re-wrote the article introduction as a concise summary of the text of the decision. I've taken the liberty of removing the tag, as now the issue it raised should be fixed.

--Doncurzio (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I see another user has reverted the edit; I would suggest that if removal of particular material is problematic, they rewrite those parts into the article with better sourcing and proper tone. I don't see any point in keeping the very POV material around, even if deleting it means deleting large parts of the article. If there's useful material, it's better added from a new slate without the POV cruft around it.

--Doncurzio (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts, Amherst supported by WikiProject Politics and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Link rot
In fixing the bare urls, I removed the rotten link: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=24+J.+L.+%26+Politics+169&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=81c22154d87cccccde70c479cb466849 I tried searching both on the lexisnexis database and in general for what that would link to as well as the text it was used to cite, to no avail whatsoever. Feel free to re-investigate, it has the potential to be a great reference, if it exists.