Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive 3

Four more articles that need work
United States v. Constantine, Morissette v. United States, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., and Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger all need a good deal of work. If anyone has some time to kill, you might want to have a look at these. --Eastlaw 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at Williamson later today. Peyna 14:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

New PCA?
After several months of being the PCA, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld hasn't seen much more work as of late. The article looks good, so can we pick a new PCA? --MZMcBride 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've closed it.--Kchase T 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Leser v. Garnett
I got annoyed at the reference in the Nineteenth Amendment article about a Supreme Court case without the case name, so I found out it was Leser v. Garnett and added a page for it. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at it and make sure it's okay. I didn't know what to put for some of the infobox bits (like citations) so I left them blank. - Flooey 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case
Several articles that focus on the involvement of Abrams in several cases (SCOTUS and otherwise) have been nominated for deletion under the above link. Postdlf 04:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice on how to handle articles?
I'm at a crossroads with what once was "Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case" but is now History and background of New York Times Co. v. United States. It was always my goal to create an article that delved more into the background of the Supreme Court cases themselves, from arguments to procedural posture to some of the dialogue that occurs between the judges and lawyers. I didn't think this suited the main Supreme Court cases, which concentrate on the opinions and holdings. I'm at a point with this article where I am going to start to Lexis-Nexis it and compare it with news stories, etc. What I do not' want to do is repeat work that is already done, namely the current main article New York Times Co. v. United States article. I don't want competing articles, but complimentary ones. So, I'm a little stuck. Do I now lead the reader to the main article? Do I go into some of the posturing that went on in the Supreme Court case? Do I write a brief paragraph and do a {{ goto ]]? I'm not really sure what to do now that I have finished the base of the article (before checking/revising it with newspaper accounts) up to the filing of the writ of certiorari. I could use some advice/suggestions. Dave --DavidShankBone 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Erie doctrine cases
Apparently, someone has taken the liberty of writing articles on three of the more important Erie doctrine cases: Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Hanna v. Plumer. The articles are accurate in their description of the cases but could use some formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastlaw (talk • contribs)
 * I fixed up Hanna somewhat. Postdlf 17:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up Guaranty and Byrd. Also as a reminder: voting is open for the next PCA. --MZMcBride 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll have a look at what could be the next PCA. Also, sorry for forgetting to sign my comment.  --Eastlaw 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have checked the talk page before listing a new PCA. Feel free to revert me, or we can just use one of these for next time.--Kchase T 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Schlesinger v. Councilman
OK, I know it's a bit late to choose a PCA, but the article for Schlesinger v. Councilman could really use some work. It really needs to be expanded. --Eastlaw 06:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamdan GA nomination
I put Hamdan v. Rumsfeld up for GA nomination. The reviewer wanted more citations in a few of the justices' opinion sections (see comments on the talk page). Any help with cites would be greatly appreciated. --MZMcBride 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: Hamdan is now a "Good Article".--Kchase T 12:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

External links to texts
Should we try to create a redirect page for case text and laws like they have for books and maps  so that people are not required to go to one site for Supreme Court cases and other laws? Remember 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're suggesting, I'm just not sure there are enough websites to warrant a special page. FindLaw contains quite a large number of cases, but not all. LexisOne contains every case, but it isn't linkable. Justia is becoming better, but currently is not very good at all. Certain high-profile cases have multiple websites devoted to them, but databases that have all of the cases and are free are very, very limited. I wish there were more free databases that contained all the cases and were linkable, but it just isn't so. Thanks. --MZMcBride 03:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 19:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Beacon Theaters v. Westover
Somebody began writing an article for Beacon Theaters v. Westover, but it barely contains any information, just a quote from Cornell LII. I'm personally not all that familiar with this case...that is, I have heard of it, but I haven't read it and don't know much about the reasoning involved. I have been very busy with real life concerns, so if any of you can work on it, please do. --Eastlaw 06:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I made a few minor edits, including a page move. --MZMcBride 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico v. Branstad
I recently finished the article on this obscure but important case. I would like someone from the project to peer-review it.&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment in CFD
Peripherally related to this project, but I thought this CFD could benefit from more contributors versed in the state/federal court systems. The proposal is simply to add "state court" to all the state court judge categories, to clarify their purpose (e.g., "Alabama judges" --> "Alabama state court judges"). Many of the comments so far have just left me confused. Postdlf 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congrats to all the hardworking members of this project and all the many other contributors to Supreme Court of the United States, today's Featured Article! It's great to see it on the main page.--Kchase T 10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas review
Just to let everyone know while I'm on a prolonged break from doing these articles, Lawrence v. Texas has been listed at featured article review. If anyone wants to keep it an FA, take part. Daniel Case 05:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lawrence v. Texas is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 19:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles
This proposed policy change would permit the speedy deletion of articles that are "unsourced" for 14 days after being tagged as such, which I think has implications for our articles in particular. 1) If "sourced" only means "reliable sources," it is often not understood that a primary source is a reliable source for its own content, such that a cite to a court opinion is sufficient for an article on that opinion (presuming the article merely describes and quotes from that opinion's text). 2)  If "sourced" only means "secondary" "third-party" sources, then this would bar articles on any opinions for which we cannot find a news article or law review article commenting on it. 3) Court citations are not always recognized by laypeople as providing source information (though this is obviated by the usual practice of external links to the full text).  I have not yet commented on the proposed policy's talk page, but these are my concerns as is relevant here.  Keep in mind that this would not affect articles that have unsourced statements, only those that are completely devoid of sources.  Postdlf 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing the cases here
I have noticed that many of the U.S. Supreme Court articles have not been listed in their proper section of the List of United States Supreme Court cases. I have taken care of some of this, but I am quite busy right now and I simply do not have time to find all the articles which are absent from the list and write a citation & description for all of them.

Some of the cases which need to be put on the list are (and this is by no means a complete list):


 * Arizona v. Evans
 * United States v. Arvizu‎
 * Estes v. Texas
 * Ewing v. California
 * Granholm v. Heald
 * Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co.
 * Kramer v. Union School District
 * McBoyle v. United States
 * Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
 * Oregon v. Guzek
 * Puerto Rico v. Branstad
 * United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
 * United States v. Place
 * Solem v. Helm
 * Troxel v. Granville

Many of the above listed cases need to be categorized and expanded as well.

I also noticed that a couple of articles were about cases where certiorari was denied:
 * Massachusetts v. Laird
 * Mora v. McNamara

I'm not really sure what to do with these.

I thank you all in advance for your assistance and advice. --Eastlaw 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The ones where cert. was denied were never Supreme Court cases because the Court never accepted review; the articles should be framed so that the subject is the U.S. Court of Appeals opinion (or the lawsuit generally), with the cert. denial noted as a subsequent (or final) development. Postdlf 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research alert
A section on possible attacks on the Court's scrutiny framework has been added to at least a couple articles under a couple different IPs. See text removed by me here and here. My edit summaries make clear what I thought of the text. I saw these just because these cases were on my watchlist; it's possible that it was added elsewhere. Postdlf 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  03:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

First Amendment to the United States Constitution
First Amendment to the United States Constitution is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relevant category for deletion
Please see this CFD on Category:Jewish Supreme Court justices. Postdlf 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource,, and linking
I've noticed that the wikipedia SCOTUS case pages use a template which automatically links to FindLaw. I wonder if this is such a good idea for three reasons:
 * 1) Findlaw doesn't have every case
 * 2) It's a commerical site
 * 3) The wikisource collection of Supreme Court cases gets automatically ignored

over at wikisource we're working on a collection of case documents to serve as source references for other wiki projects especially wikipedia. with two people we've managed quite alot, over 60 cases on the index presently. This is a great resource that is getting overlooked and could be greatly developed if it were brought more in line with the wikipedia pages. There are, of course, a number of ways to do this but i think this merits discussion before beginning. --Metal.lunchbox 07:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad this project is ongoing at wikisource. I can't think of a good reason to link to findlaw if there is already a good case document over at wikisource.  I did notice, though, that many of the newer cases (all of the ones I looked at from the Rehnquist court) lack page notations in the text, or at least they weren't prominent enough for me to see them.  Page notations are critical for case citations, of course.  Once this is remedied, I'm happy with linking to wikisource instead of findlaw where available for the reasons you mention. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the good thing about wikisource oposed to any other source is you can make it however you want. i mean so far the two of us have just endeavored to make the collection as usable as possible but lack any real expertise. If there is anything you think we should be doing on the wikisource page do it or just tell us. Many of the cases do have page citations but true many do lack. Thank you for pointing this out to me. Any comments, suggestions, etc are welcome at the wikiproject talk page on wikisource. I have no experience with this material and it would be great to have somebody with a little more knowledge.--Metal.lunchbox 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason FindLaw is used is that it contains the most cases, and is easily linked to. There are over 500 cases on Wikipedia, and only 60 on Wikisource, creating a large (but hopefully one day filled) gap. The database that contains every Supreme Court case is LexisOne, however, their site is unable to be directly linked to. Also, the code for Template:SCOTUSCase is designed to work with linking set up through FindLaw because FindLaw is able to link using the U.S. Reports' volume and page information. While FindLaw is commercial, I think for the sake of consistency, if a case is available on Wikisource, it should just include Wikisource at the bottom of the page. Hopefully, in the future, there can be an article on Wikipedia and the actual case on Wikisource for every case, however, FindLaw seems to be the best option right now. Thanks. --MZMcBride 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with User:MZMcBride, as I think that Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center is a superior source for finding U.S. Supreme Court cases. Furthermore, it is a non-commercial cite. If we are going to stop using Findlaw, I think we should replace it with Justia. --Eastlaw 05:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before here. However, it seems Justia is improving. Do other members of this project think we should be switching databases? --MZMcBride 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I was unaware that this issue had come up previously. Use of Justia is simply a personal preference of mine; I leave the final decision up to the administators involved in this project.  --Eastlaw 12:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the use of findlaw in the template is certainly a complex issue and I certainly understand the reasons listed above especially the great difference in size between Wikisource and Findlaw. I will suggest that we leave the template to a seperate discussion and link to wikisource where appropriate in the external links section as with Schenck v. United States. Its unobtrusive and it seems like a workable compromise to me. Wikisource is a great potential resource and this kind of interlinking encourages its further development.--Metal.lunchbox 12:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds great. I took a little time to look at Justia last night, and there are typos and other errors of note. Keep up the great work at Wikisource. Hopefully, one day, it can be what everyone needs. Thanks. --MZMcBride 14:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to switch to Justia, I think we ought to compare sites more explicitly/thorougly first. Coolcaesar raised the following points in the previous discussion: 1) more ads on Justia (I don't see any now), 2) errors like "Footenote", and 3) strange layout conventions like skipping lines at page breaks (this is still true), instead of Findlaw's unobtrusive numbering system. Finally, there's the issue of comprehensive coverage: do both databases have all the cases we have articles on? I think switching would only necessitate recoding the templates, so we won't have to change hundreds of case articles.--Kchase T 11:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Switching databases would also require going through individual pages and changing information in tags and external links sections, or just having no consistency/uniformity throughout (something I'm not a fan of). I'm strongly opposed to using Justia in its current state because of examples like this. There is color-changing text such as "Page 328 U.S. 256, 257" that does nothing, and simple words such as "because" are misspelled. An interesting Google search of "becuase" on Justia's site was disappointing. For the time being, FindLaw's database is more accurate and easier to read, and in my opinion, should be used for Supreme Court cases. Thanks. --MZMcBride 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent due diligence there, MZM. As a result, I'm in the findlaw corner for now. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade FAR
Roe v. Wade is up for Feature Article Review. Please feel free to drop by if you would like to comment. Thank you! -Severa (!!!)

Roe v. Wade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More eyes needed on Marbury v. Madison
This article has been subject to nothing but vandalism for so long that a number of substantial edits over the past week may have gone largely unnoticed (see differences here), but one user has completely rewritten huge swaths of the article in a largely unencyclopedic, and probably POV voice that has also been littered with typos. I have left a message on his talk page about the style concerns, but have not had time to correct them or to analyze the substance of his changes. I'm wondering whether it might not be better simply to revert back entirely, as I can't say the new edits have contributed anything constructive. Thoughts? Postdlf 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just waiting for the user to finish, then I was planning to clean up the mess. I agree with your assessment, and a full revert might be in order. It does seem, though, that the user is editing in good faith based on the few diffs I've looked at, so we should tread carefully. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Which is why I haven't reverted already...  ; )  Postdlf 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to at least try and fix the numerous spelling errors, and remove some of the terribly POV language. JCO312 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed a LOT of text that was added by the user in question. Rather than revert, I tried to go through and replace the more inappropriate material (i.e., the dramatic, the POV) with prior text.  Unfortunately I removed a lot of his work.  Hope I haven't stepped on any toes.  Cheers, JCO312 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's what needed to happen. Thanks JCO312. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Roe
As mentioned above, the Roe v. Wade article is now subject to a featured article review. Any comments would be appreciated.Ferrylodge 05:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First few articles
Could someone glance over them to check they're okay? Also, I can't figure out the 'Court Membership' in the template. Let me know if I'm doing something wrong or how to improve.


 * Hoyt v. Florida


 * King v. Smith


 * O'Connor v. Donaldson


 * Watkins v. United States


 * Whitus v. Georgia

Thanks. Whilding87 15:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians
I have noticed there is no article covering United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980). This is the case in which the Supreme Court ruled improper the 1877 taking by the United States of the Black Hills from the Great Sioux Nation. The case is referenced in the Black Hills article, but it does not have its own page like other Supreme Court cases. Not being familiar with the syntax of creating Supreme Court articles, I would appreciate any advice or suggestions on how to create this article. Here is the findlaw description of the case .Dcmacnut 21:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The page has been created using { {subst:SCOTUS-case}} and is located here. --MZMcBride 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD on article related to WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

 * Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), relation to WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases due to filing of Freedom of Information Act requests, and United States Supreme Court case:
 * Schwarz v. NSA, Nos. 98-7771 and 98-7782, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 526 U.S. 122; 119 S. Ct. 1109; 143 L. Ed. 2d 203; 1999
 * Yours, Smee 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

FindLaw case law
While I'm not trying to seek legal advice, I would like to know if moving U.S. Supreme Court cases from FindLaw to WikiSource would be allowable under Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. I think that growing WikiSource to be the primary place for all U.S. Supreme Court Wikipedia articles would be wonderful, and it seems to me that no company can legitimately copyright the Court's opinions. Any thoughts? --MZMcBride 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to hear other opinions on this, but I don't see any big problems with doing that. The only potential problem, I suppose, would be the findlaw hyperlinks in the text, i.e. the case citations ("527 U.S. 1" for example).  These links (or perhaps their placement, I don't know, I'm being cautious) could be the only thing they could potentially claim as covered by copyright.  Even then, I think the logic is a bit tortured.  Problem avoided if the links are removed from copied text. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm very glad to see that this project is still alive and well even though I am no longer active. All the hard work is appreciated. I still check here for concise information on cases when I don't want to read an entire opinion.
 * To answer your question, while they don't fall under the Feist precedent, Supreme Court opinions are U.S. Government Works, which fall under 17 USC § 105 stating that government works (i.e. products of a government employee on behalf of the government) cannot obtain copyrights. Therefore, putting them into WikiSource would be no problem. FindLaw is also listed on the SCOTUS government website (http://www.supremecourtus.gov) as a source of where to find opinions, which would seem to indicate that they are merely reprinting and formatting the same works that cannot obtain a copyright. To find other sources, you can check the official list from the Court here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.pdf
 * I hope this helps to answer your question. -Skyler 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United States FAR
Supreme Court of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Youngberg v. Romeo
Hi there. This page was recently created by and is in need of some basic attention. If any members of this project could jump in, that would be great. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dred Scott v. Sandford FAR
Dred Scott v. Sandford has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki Cooperation
I've asked for an "interwiki cooperation". Please read the discussion here. Thanks. Erasoft24 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Coming off hiatus
Hey guys. Just letting you all know I'm starting the page for United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission (337 U.S. 426) and it should be done... well, at some point in the near future. I'm mainly mentioning this because it'll need one of those infobox dealies (I'm a little out of practice), so if someone could do that for me once I've finished I would appreciate it. Thanks! Lemonsawdust 21:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Lemonsawdust 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just finished Weems v. United States as well. It needs and infobox, too, since I don't have confidence in my abilities. Lemonsawdust 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Landmark First Amendment case Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. is done and needs an infobox. Could probably also use a combing-through for grammar, punctuation, that kind of thing. And, as usual, any additions to make it more useful are the best kind! Lemonsawdust 02:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is as good a time as any to mention this: all the cases listed in Category:United States Supreme Court cases (to the best of my knowledge) no longer use the old infobox system. Every case that used the table system has been updated and is now using the template system. However, many cases are still in need of attention and I encourage editors to take a look at the Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles. In addition, if anyone stumbles upon a case I missed, please let me know and I'd be happy to update it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Levy v. Louisiana is up and could use an infobox, as well as (probably) some copyediting. Lemonsawdust 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox and copyediting for the new Stanford v. Texas is also requested. Lemonsawdust 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Landmark Establishment Clause case Agostini v. Felton is up, too. Lemonsawdust 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Landmark "right to die" case Vacco v. Quill is up. Lemonsawdust 15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations Standards
Our articles about citations have far too many redundant citations included. Every citation in every reporter and online database is needlessly redundant. Many of these citation lines include citations to various services (such as Florida Law Week), American Federal Tax Reports, etc. What separates those from, say, the New York Times reproducing the text of the opinion? Or it being on FindLaw, or some website? Where is the line between what's in and what's out? The database citations (such as Lexis) are completely redundant, since any of the databases will find the case with any of the other citation formats; the database citation format is only useful when the opinion isn't yet available in a traditional printed source. The only sources that need be listed are United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, Lawyers' Edition, and (maybe) United States Law Week. Anything else is not general enough to be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, and in any event is contrary to standard practice (neither The Bluebook nor any State-specific citation system I am familiar with calls for citations to anything other than the "big 3" reporters unless it is not available in them). As for citation to the archaic reporters, it is foolish to put that in the citation line in the infobox; nobody is actually using those any more. It should, however, appear in the first reference to the citation in the text because it is standard practice to indicate that parenthetically. Additionally, the "full name" of the case is just that: the name of the case, not necessarily the parties to it. The name of the case is as it is expressed by the Reporter of Decisions. Using anything else isn't using the name of the case but the parties to it. Why don't we look up all the named parties and list them out one by one, instead of "et al."? Because the Reporter of Decisions styled it et al., of course. 76.10.24.245 01:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Before changing the hundreds of cases that exist with the current method, there should be some consensus. For citations, the current practice is to list the published citations for a particular case. The New York Times partners with FindLaw and doesn't have its own citation. Subsequently, FindLaw also doesn't have its own citation system, it uses the U.S. Reporters' system, and thus doesn't need a citation listed. Yet, published journals do have a citation system and those citations are currently included. In regard to the full case name, it is the full case name to list everyone involved. The litigants field lists the major parties and the name decided on by the U.S. Reporter, however, the full case name field has always been used to list the full case name, which includes the parties involved. I don't see any problem with articles like Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that have a longer (and more accurate) full case name. Until consensus is established, please stop changing articles that use the current method. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The name arrived at by the Reporter of Decisions is not what appears on the Litigants line of the infobox (e.g., "Bank of the United States" instead of "The President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States"). And that's my point: the "Litigants" line should express the standardized, probably Bluebook form of the case, with only the first named party on each side shown, dropping "the" and prepositional phrases with geographic references, etc., while the "full name" should be just that: the full name as it appears at the top of the case report, without us guessing at how the parties should be styled. My point regarding the New York Times was simply this: if they reprinted a prominent opinion in their paper (as they often do with, say, the text of the State of the Union Address) should we list that too? And any website where the text appears? Should we dig through the entire list of "Services" in Bluebook T.15 and make sure we've listed every one of those that reprints the text of every Supreme Court opinion? There's no way to have a consistent and systematic approach unless we simply limit it to United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition, and possibly United States Law Week. At the risk of making a total dork of myself, we need a "bright line rule" here. There's no particular reason to list only the ones that happen to appear on LexisNexis and Westlaw, because that only speaks to which companies happen to have reached an agreement with those companies so that their Service's citation system works in those databases. That is not a principled approach. A principled approach would be to list the 3 traditional printed sources, and possibly USLW. There would be a "method to the madness." 76.10.24.245 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with MZMcBride. At best you've argued that some information (such as the LEXIS cites for cases found in print reporters) may be unnecessary, but no one has asked you to add it.  Instead, you were putting in effort to remove it, when a consensus of editors would prefer to see it remain the way that's worked for us for quite some time.  The only apparent benefit to changing it is less information, but the infobox was designed to hold all of this and is hardly overtaxed.  Postdlf 04:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with MZM and Post. I fully support having our case articles be streamlined and easy to use; however, I can't support incidental streamlining at the expense of potentially useful information. I honestly think the position you take does have merit, but as presented here I don't think it would result in increased article quality. Lemonsawdust 05:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is no principled, systematic approach. There are other computer databases out there (VersusLaw, Loislaw) and a multitude of services that we're not including here. What effort is anyone going to in order to provide complete coverage of those? Incomplete coverage is a form of bias or POV that is inappropriate for this project. Coming up with a systematic approach requires a principled effort to choose what's in just as much as what's out. It isn't an issue of streamlining as much as it is an issue of fairness (although there are incidental streamlining benefits). 76.10.24.245 11:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general statement that we should use a systematic approach to citations in infoboxes. I do not agree, however, that this has anything to do with neutral point of view.  "Neutrality", not "complete coverage" is our goal.  Our articles should be "fair" to their subjects; nothing compels us to be fair to external legal databases.  This isn't an issue of neutrality, but rather consistency or uniformity among legal articles.  That said, I have no strong opinion on whether we link to Lexis or not, but we should do so (or not do so) consistently if possible. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 12:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The citations we have used are the ones people are most likely to encounter, from the most prominent sources, of which LEXIS and WestLaw are undoubtedly the two dominant online databases. I've never even heard of VersusLaw or Loislaw, and I am a practicing lawyer.  As Jersyko said, "neutrality" does not compel us to include obscure sources alongside common ones.  Postdlf 15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Postdlf regarding the two dominant databases. I'm also a practicing attorney and have never heard of the other two mentioned. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * VersusLaw: http://www.versuslaw.com/, Loislaw: http://www.loislaw.com/, both appear in The Bluebook. It's not particularly relevant; the point is, there's no principled way to distinguish between the multitude of services, databases, and the rest. Our coverage notably usually does not include direct citations to the Westlaw database entry, even though it routinely has Lexis. The reality is this: standard practice with many lawyers (and at least some Supreme Court Justices), as well as the citation rule in some jurisdictions (such as my own) is to provide citations to the the official reporter and the "big 2" unofficial reporters, and USLW is a non-subject-specific reporter done by what is probably the single most prestigious of the "services" (BNA). I see no principled way to distinguish between Florida Law Week (which is "in"), and Insurance Law Reports, Labor Law Reporter, U.S. Tax Reporter (all of which are apparently "out"). I see no particular utility in providing direct citations to Lexis or Westlaw database entries if citations to to the other traditional reporters exist. They're both either redundant or unprincipled (which produces a lack of uniformity). More does not equal better. The "flavor" of an encyclopedia entry is sufficiently general that a service that is subject-specific or produced predominantly for the needs of a regional audience is not especially appropriate even if uniformity and redundancy were not issues. U.S., S. Ct., L. Ed., and U.S.L.W. are the only citations that are truly appropriate for an encyclopedia (and thus, a Wikipedia) entry. 76.10.24.245 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're mistaking what we haven't yet gotten around to doing for what we have decided not to do. I for one prefer to use LEXIS, so the citations I have added (to probably dozens of SCOTUS case articles) just reflect the citations LEXIS gives because that's all I bothered to look up; I certainly would not remove Westlaw cites.  Feel free to add Westlaw, as well as the Insurance Law Reports, Labor Law Reporter, and U.S. Tax Reporter cites.  However, I'm skeptical of versuslaw and loislaw cites being of any use, because I don't know where you'd actually encounter references to those sources (and do they have their own uniform citation formats?) or how widespread their usage is, but feel free to explain to us why they should be included too.  Postdlf 00:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also a difference between "haven't yet gotten around to doing something" and "never planned on it and instead was content with an ad hoc mix-and-match." Where does it stop? That's the issue! Is everything in? I just picked a handful of services that report cases; there are literally dozens more. Why do some get in and others are left out? For example, Florida Law Week and Daily Journal DAR are almost always cited, but not many other services. My guess is this: those citations happen to appear in LexisNexis and Westlaw. But that says nothing about the intrinsic worthiness of the citation's appropriateness for a general article about the subject; all it says is the publishers of those services have reached agreements with LexisNexis to make cross-references work compatibly. That is not a principled way to decide to include them. I don't care whether those "neglected" services are in or not (I use none of them), but there is no principled reason to exclude them if we're going to include this other information, and if you're going to include the other information that puts the burden on the includer to chase down the rest of it in the interests of equity. Knowing (as we do) the dynamic that leads to their incorporation, a lack of intent to include that information is essentially the same as an intent to exclude it, because there's no particular explanation for why we're including anything, so how would we know what all we need to look up to complete the set? How would we know what even constitutes a complete set? As for citations to the Lexis and Westlaw databases themselves, those are completely useless once the opinion appears in more traditional printed source, because both databases include all the cross references for the traditional printed sources. I don't know of a single legal document I've ever seen that cites to those unless that is the only possible option. Why are we including them? It's pretentious noise in the article that usually takes up another line in the infobox. In short, I am seeking some sort of affirmative reason this information should be in, because typical legal practice ignores all of it, and I think it does for the same sorts of reasons it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia: it is not intended for a sufficiently general audience. 76.10.24.245 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose the only real difference I have with you is that I don't see a codified method as necessary right now. I know this seems like a cop-out on my part, but in my opinion the most important part of this project is to provide the greatest utility for anyone who happens to look up SCOTUS cases on Wikipedia. If you or anyone else has a proposal for how to improve our citation standards, I think that would be a positive step. But absent such a plan, I feel the most prudent thing to do is to focus on the task of making our articles as substantive as possible. In practice, I include citations that are relatively easy for the average person (such as myself) to obtain. As long as the information is there, and the relevant sources are cited, I can feel that the articles are providing a good resource to Wikipedia users. There is, of course, plenty of room for improvement. If there is some method of codification you would like to see in this project, I feel we should have a more in-depth discussion on the logistics. Just to sum up my most basic point: I want this project to be as useful to as many people as practical. The inclusion or exclusion of certain citations may seem (or, in fact, simply be) arbitrary, but as long as the articles themselves are useful the project is succeeding. Thus, if maintaining a standard code for case citations improves article quality, I'm all for it. But I would like to have a practicable plan before I advocate it. Lemonsawdust 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A practicable plan is entirely feasible and I was trying to implement it before others seemed to think the non-system currently being used was "necessary," reverted the progress and sent me here. Thus this debate, which I think is rather unnecessary as well, but only because I thought my approach was eminently sensible. The proposal is simply this: citations should be confined to United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter and United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition; I can see arguments in both directions as to United States Law Week and was going to propose it also be included as a way of accommodating the "inclusionists" in this debate. I think the bona fides of those 3, and the way in which they are so often cited to as a set, speak for themselves and need no further justification as to why they are "in." As I note, U.S.L.W. is a closer call, but it is generally (with general applicability being the key) the first source the legal community turns to when it needs a citation to a printed source for a recently-decided Supreme Court decision before Thomson West and LexisNexis can get it into S. Ct. and L. Ed. I was attempting to systematically remove what I perceive as "chaff" and had my work reversed, and was directed here. I really just want to get "permission" to get back to what I was trying to do. 76.10.24.245 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As the reverter, I think this is where I chime in. The problem is, you conceived and started implementing a plan for a systematic change on your own, without concern for the preferences of others.  I think your arguments about systematization provide no particular reason to prefer your plan over the status quo, despite what has been said above.  You appear to perceive "redundancy" as automatically bad, and it is not in this area.  In information design, one tenet is that multiple paths of entry into a body of information is a good thing, even at the risk of perceived redundancy.  In this case, however, what you perceive as redundant is not truly redundant.  These are separate, distinct methods of locating the text of the opinion.  For example, Cranch may be archaic, but it is not the same source as Lexis, therefore it is not "the same as" the other cite.  Furthermore, a reader may have the ability to access the former and not the latter (e.g., I know a public library that has Cranch as the result of some long-dead attorney's bequest but no Lexis subscription because of budgetary reasons).  Systematization is fine, but it should not be pursued either for its own sake or in isolation from the rest of the community working on these articles.  Eggishorn 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument establishes nothing vis-a-vis the points I've raised, however, because it isn't true in the reverse (which has been my point all along). Your library with only Cranch but not Lexis could still easily find the cases using my approach. Additionally, anybody with Lexis or Westlaw can find the case without the unique database identifiers, so including them is truly redundant and offers none of the information design benefits you mention. It's just pretentious noise. The only person who it has any meaning for is a legal professional who already has a subscription to one (or both) services who can easily find the opinion without the database serial number format because the other citations work just as well. For all other members of the general public, it's just legal mumbo-jumbo. Some of that is inevitable, but I think it ought to be mumbo-jumbo that makes a uniquely valuable contribution to the article, instead of something that is purely redundant. 76.10.24.245 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'd add: systemization for its own sake is something that is highly worthy of being pursued for its own sake. A group of lawyers is not a group I would expect to need to explain that to, but a well-written explanation of its usefulness is Antonin Scalia, Essay, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. C HI . L. R EV . 1175 (1989); particularly his observation that "[p]arents know that children will accept quite readily all sorts of arbitrary substantive dispositions -- no television in the afternoon, or no television in the evening, or even no television at all. But try to let one brother or sister watch television when the others do not, and you will feel the fury of the fundamental sense of justice unleashed." Id. at 1178. Our ad hoc approach to what unofficial material we're going to an effort to include and what we're leaving out is no different than that parent that gives some children privileges he does not extend to others. 76.10.24.245 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing left to say at this point is, thanks for your comments opinions, but we all disagree. Postdlf 03:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Except, that isn't an accurate characterization of the debate. There are aspects of my position you've not addressed, and others have said they have no problem with my position per se but question the timing of it, etc. I don't think you can write me off other than that you simply don't want to have the discussion any more, which is no more principled of a position than the other one I'm confronting. 76.10.24.245 05:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court nominees categories
I just happened to notice that Category:Unsuccessful nominees to the United States Supreme Court and Category:Withdrawn nominees to the United States Supreme Court were deleted in February after little relevant discusssion (they were included with a bunch of Presidential and V-P nom categories), and with no input from Project members. I think that these categories are defensible and useful, and the one on-point comment of substance in the CFD is easily rebuttable (comparing the "unsuccessful nominees" category to Super Bowl losers). As the categories were deleted based on mostly unelaborated votes and/or a simple lack of support, a WP:DRV request might be successful. However, I wanted to check support for such a move before doing anything; if I'm the only one who would like to see these recreated, I'm not going to bother. Postdlf 19:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with you. · <b style="color:#709070;">j e r s y k o</b> <i style="color:#007BA7; font-size:x-small;">talk</i> · 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Same. --MZMcBride 19:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. These categories seem very relevant to encyclopedic documentation. Lemonsawdust 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, good. So what's our clear and concise rationale for undeletion, based on the WP:DRV criteria? We should work it out here first. Postdlf 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've started it below. Edit away.--Chaser - T 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

These categories were deleted during a large CFD in February where several Presidential nominee categories were nominated (and kept). For these two cats in particular, the CFD resembled straight voting, with very little actual discussion of the merits of deletion of them in particular (as opposed to the Presidential cats, for which there was more discussion). As Osomec indicated in the final comment "Nominating a set of categories of such varying notability as a batch is not a good way to get a result." In fact, a comparison to Superbowl losers was the only comment during the discussion that was actually about these two judicial categories. (The closer also made a comment: that there was already a list of judicial nominees, a point that is addressed below.) With so little discussion of these two categories, it was inappropriate to delete them.

The categories are both valid and encyclopedic. They complement Category:United States Supreme Court justices and its subcategories. The analogies to Super Bowl losers and to candidates for political office do not fit. Unlike Superbowl losers, many nominees to the Supreme Court are famous primarily or only for being nominees (think of why people recognize the names Harriet Miers and Robert Bork; in both cases, their status as failed/withdrawn nominees is noted in the article lead). Furthermore, with games as well as elections, there are always losers, but unsuccessful Supreme Court nominees have been relatively rare. The statistics show that most nominees have been approved throughout the Court's history, so something unusual happens when a nominee is not confirmed.

The closer pointed out that there is already a list that duplicates the categories. Setting aside the issue of how appropriate it is for this rationale to be raised for the first time in the closing, categories and lists are not in competition; they work best when used in synergy. Categories are helpful for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia in a way that lists are not (plus lists clutter See also sections whereas categories are less obstrusive). Categories furthermore help to classify articles, and as noted above being a failed or withdrawn nominee does help to define the notability of those individuals in a substantial way.

Simply on the numbers, there was insufficient consensus to delete. For these two cats, there were two keeps (unnamed and Sefrigle) and three deletes (Otto4711, mikedk9109, and nominator Xdamr). 60% with virtually no discussion should have been "no consensus". Based on these substantive and procedural issues, I ask that the deletion be overturned.


 * Update DRV successful, categories restored and re-populated.--Chaser - T 18:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When to disambiguate
I just turned Smith v. Texas into a disambiguation page, as there are at least 2 SCOTUS decisions by that name: Smith I, 543 U.S. 17 (2004), which is summarized in the article for 2004 term per curiam decisions, and a 2007 decision, Smith II, 550 U.S. ___ (2007), which is a full decision and so should eventually have its own article. Considering how Smith II is the same case back to the Court after remand, and Smith I is a per curiam (and therefore presumptively less significant opinion) that will not get its own separate article, it might also work to have the 2007 decision at Smith v. Texas, with just a "For the 2004 decision, see..." at the top. However, considering how there are likely (or will likely be) more "Smith v. Texas" decisions to disambiguate, maybe it's better to keep it this way in the long run. Thoughts?
 * Also, do we (or should we) have a separate template/category for court case disambiguation pages? Postdlf 00:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, the specific question is resolved by the fact that there have been at least 4 "Smith v. Texas" decisions by SCOTUS...but any thoughts on the general questions of when to disambiguate and when to do a "see..."? Postdlf 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacobson on peer review
I haven't been actively involved in this project for a while, but last summer I vastly expanded Jacobson v. United States and created articles on all the other four cases where the Court considered an entrapment claim (Sorrells, Sherman, Russell and Hampton).

After a couple of other articles I had long worked on made GA, I wondered if this one could too (I believe it's GA-quality). So I have listed it on peer review if anyone wants to take a look. Daniel Case 15:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The peer review is done and I have nominated it for GA. Daniel Case 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It passed! Great! Another one for our trophy case! Daniel Case 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge request: two articles on the same case
For some reason, two articles were written on the same case:

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White and Burlington N. & S.F.R. Co. v. White

Can we please merge these? --Eastlaw 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't ask, just do. Be bold. There is no need for these two separate articles. Daniel Case 14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I merged it, although I'm not sure I did it the "correct" way. Furthermore, I think the article should be cleaned up for easier reading.  I've been quite busy (beginning studying for the bar exam, etc.) so I really don't have time to do all the work this article needs.  --Eastlaw 01:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)