# Talk:Bank Markazi v. Peterson

At the moment, this article uses Template:Rp to cite pages in the Court's slip opinion. The pages listed in this article's citations are to the page numbers of the PDF document, rather than the pagination in the slip opinion. Unless I hear objections from other editors, I am going to go ahead and change the citations to direct readers to the pagination in the slip opinion. This will also allow us to follow Bluebook conventions when citing to the convention (as recommended by MOS:LAW), and it will allow us to cite to the correct page in the dissenting opinion (where the pagination restarts at page 1). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: The reason for using the PDF page numbers is to differentiate the syllabus, majority opinion, and dissent (each section begins with 1). Could you wait a few days? I have until Wed. 5/4 to expand this article enough for DYK. Changing the citations would completely confuse me. The reason for using Template:Rp is that 1) I am not familiar with using short citations and 2) I don't know the proper Bluebook conventions for all the other types of citations. Since there are so many citations, I have decided to use the Citation Style 1 templates (the cite web, cite news, etc. templates above the box for editing as well as Template:Cite case). MOS:LAW says "it is recommended that editors use the referencing style for the jurisdiction that heard that case or for which that legal subject applies." Note the word "recommended" not "required". Per MOS:CITEVAR (emphasis mine):
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.
I created the page and have been the main contributor (see page history). The current citation style is sufficient for MOS purposes. If you'd like to change all citations to Bluebook style, please wait until I am finished adding content to the article (I am trying to get it to GA status &, as mentioned, have until Wednesday to add about 6k of prose so that it can be nominated for DYK). AHeneen (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@AHeneen: That's totally fine with me; I won't make any changes until the content is settled, and I won't make any changes to the citation format unless there is a clear consensus to do so. In fact, we don't need to use Bluebook-style citations at all. I simply wanted to make sure that the pages cited in this article's footnotes match the pagination in the slip opinion, which will be different from the pagination in the United States Reports (cited as 578 U.S. ___) or the Supreme Court Reporter (cited as ___ S.Ct. ___). For that reason, I still think it is important to at least differentiate between citations to the majority and citations to the dissent in your citations so that readers won't be confused by the change in pagination that occurs at the start of the dissenting opinion. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok. This is actually a departure from my usual practice, which is to use the page numbers on the content rather than the PDF page. Of course, such a practice wouldn't work here because of the different page numbers between syllabus, majority opinion, & dissenting opinion. When writing the majority opinion section and while writing the dissent section (currently working on that), I have added the page of the opinion as hidden text, eg. <ref name="Slip opinion"/>{{Rp|22<!-- 19 -->}}. That will make it easier to adjust the citation page numbers. I think I used the actual (not PDF) page numbers in the Background section. For right now, I just want to add enough content to be able to nominate for DYK. After that, I'll fix the page numbers. AHeneen (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@AHeneen: That all sounds good to me. Thanks again for your contributions to SCOTUS articles; we definitely need more editors in this area. Please let me know if I can be of help in any way. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Page numbers have been fixed. I divided the slip op reference into two separate references (majority opinion and dissenting opinion) and changed the page number used to the page number of the respective opinion. A couple inline citations to the syllabus (which justices joined which opinion) have been replaced with references to the SCOTUS docket. AHeneen (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@AHeneen: Thank you for your continued efforts to improve and expand this article! I know that you anticipate nominating this for GA status, so I'd like to offer a few brief editorial suggestions:

In some locations, you refer to "22 U.S.C. §8772" as "§8772," and in others, you call it "section 8772." I don't know if there are any WP:MOS guidelines for statutes, but the Bluebook says that you should call statutes "section 1234" (with a lowercase "s") in the text of a sentence and "§ 8772" (with a space between the section symbol and the number) in citations. I don't think it really matters what you choose, as long as it is consistent throughout the article.
In some locations, you use "U.S." (with periods) to refer to the United States, and in some locations, you use "US" (periods). Again, I think you should be consistent.
If you ultimately format case citations according to Bluebook conventions, make sure the citations after block quotations are formatted correctly. The proper full citation to the slip opinion (in Bluebook style) is: Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at [inset page number or page range] (2016).
If you are finished adding content, you should change the page citations for the slip opinion from the pagination of the PDF to the pagination of the slip opinion.
Let me know if any of the above comments are unclear. Thanks again for your hard work! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and for the DYK review. I should find time to clean up the article sometime in the next few days. I think I was using "Section 8772" as a proper noun (thus capitalized), then switched to using "§8772" except when it was at the beginning of a sentence. The slip opinion uses "§8772" throughout. Anyways, of course, the terms should be consistent throughout the article. Additionally, I think that the lead should be trimmed down a bit. AHeneen (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I decided on using the symbol rather than lowercase "section" mainly because it is annoying to see the lowercase 's' as part of a proper noun (regardless of what the Bluebook prescribes). However, the Bluebook (see [1]) and most major style guides (eg. [2], [3]) provide that symbols should never start a sentence. So there is now one subheading called "Section 8772" and a handful of sentences that begin "Section 8772", but everywhere else in the article "§ 8772" (with a non-breaking space) is used. AHeneen (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

   The wording

...the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather its European intermediary...
means that 

the account, rather than being an asset of the bank, was itself some kind of European intermediary.
As that is cryptic, it seems likely that the editor intended to say that the account was indeed an asset, but also an account

belonging to whomever was the Euro intermediary of the bank in question
rather than to the bank. Someone with an interest in the topic rather than the wording will be a better editor than i, to check whether my guess is right, so i have tagged it as "Vague" rather than making it read

...the account was an asset not of the bank, but rather of its European intermediary...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 May 2016‎ 

The sentence read "Bank Markazi raised several defenses against the execution against the account, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act." (italics appear in article). The word "of" is the critical word for the case, as the following sentence explains (emphasis added):
In 2010, the plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit against Bank Markazi, Clearstream, Banca UBAE, and Citibank, jointly, seeking to execute against the Citibank account their judgements for damages against Iran, based on §201(a) of the TRIA, which provides that when "a person has obtained a judgement against a terrorist party ... the blocked assets of that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment."
In my opinion, it is important to keep the phrase "asset of" intact because it mirrors the applicable law. The sentence in question can be fixed easily by adding "an asset of" in offset clause: "the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary". AHeneen (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
   Thank you both for remedying my unsig & quick response. I will study this in next 24, as it sounds even more complex than i had guessed!--Jerzy•t 05:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
   The situation being described is complex, and the complexity is reflected by the complexity of all three versions we've discussed! I'll have to study how my solution and your new one differ, but it's likely you've met all my concerns & i'll say nothing further as a result. Many tnx.--Jerzy•t 06:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bank Markazi v. Peterson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Notecardforfree (talk · contribs) 06:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


### Preliminary comments
AHeneen — many thanks for your efforts to improve this article. I'll go ahead and complete this GA review over the next few days, but feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


### Full Review
My apologies for not returning to this review sooner; this was a particularly busy work week for me. Overall, I think this is a very nice article and I comment your efforts to expand coverage of SCOTUS cases on Wikipedia. This article is not far from passing, but I have identified a few issues that should be resolved before this article is promoted:


#### Lead
The article says that the statute "eliminated all of a party's defenses." I recognize that, as a practical matter, 22 U.S.C. § 8772 slammed the door shut on Bank Markazi's case, but did it really abrogate all their defenses? For example, couldn't they still argue that Iran had a constitutionally protected interest in those assets?
Upon reviewing this issue, I realize that the better way of explaining this issue is that §8772 eliminated all of the defenses Bank Markazi had raised prior to the enactment of §8772. Of course, the bank did raise several defenses to the constitutionality of §8772 after it was enacted. I adjusted the lead sentence to read eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised. Page 10 of the Second Circuit's decision rejects a Takings Clause challenge. Because the judgments for liability for the terrorist acts were final, seizing the Citibank account to satisfy those judgments was not a constitutionally-prohibited taking. Footnote 14 (p. 11) of the SCOTUS opinion notes that Bank Markazi and Clearstream unsuccessfully sought to have §8772 defeated on other constitutional grounds—the Bill of Attainder, Ex Post Facto, Equal Protection, and Takings Clauses—but those claims were no longer pursued. See also pp. 115a-121a of the Cert petition (162-168 of the PDF file).
I think the way you have re-phrased this sentence is excellent. The procedural nuances of this case are quite complicated, and I think this serves as a good explanation of the practical implications if section 8772. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The article says that "... the Chief Justice explained that § 8772 is a type of unconstitutional breach of the separation 'whereby Congress assumes the role of judge and decides a particular case in the first instance.'" I would change "breach of the separation" to something like "breach of the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government" or something like that.
I rephrased the sentence as the Chief Justice explained that § 8772 is a type of unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers between Congress and the judiciary "whereby Congress assumes the role of judge and decides a particular case in the first instance."
This sounds good. Nice work! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a fairly long article, so I don't think that the length of the lead violates WP:LEADLENGTH, but I still encourage you to shorten the lead if possible. The lead for this article certainly does an excellent job summarizing all points of the article, but I certainly don't think you should make the lead any longer than it already is.


#### State immunity
Whenever a source cites another source, it is generally good practice to indicate that the source you are citing actually derives information from another source. For example, if Author A's book cites Author B's research that shows how tall people can reach higher shelves than shorter people, and you cite Author A in an article about tall people reaching higher shelves, you should note that Author A cited author B. In fact, this practice is required by the Bluebook, and although Wikipedia's MOS does not address this issue directly, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT seems to encourage editors to identify the original source of information. In any event, it is important to identify the original author of text when you reproduce language and ideas that are not your own (see WP:WHYCITE). In this article, when the SCOTUS opinion cites other sources (cases, statutes, etc.), I strongly encourage you to explain in the footnote that the opinion is citing another source. For example, when you say that the FSIA has "an exception ... for victims of state-sponsored terrorism", I would write the footnote like this: Bank Markazi, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1)).
You should also include a sentence that explains that courts in the United States may only exercise subject matter jurisdiction in cases involving foreign sovereigns when the case falls within one of the FSIA's enumerated exceptions.
I expanded the explanation of the FSIA a little (diff)
Your summary here is very good. Nice work! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
For the sentence that explains that the TRIA "allows judgments to be executed against 'the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party'" I recommend a few things. First, the quoted language appears inside quotation marks in the source, so it should be set apart with single quotation marks (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS; alternatively, you could note in the footnote that internal quotations are omitted). Second, you need to note that you have added emphasis by italicizing the word "of." Third, I strongly encourage you to note in the footnote that Supreme Court is quoting from section 201(a) of the TRIA (codified as a footnote following 28 U.S.C. § 1610).
I added a footnote to the law and removed the emphasis.
The way it is written now looks good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


#### Litigation before § 8772 was enacted
As far as I can tell, neither the SCOTUS opinion, nor Lyle Denniston's article, nor the petition for cert mention the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. Can you cite a source that says that the earlier litigation involved claims relating to the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing?
I added a reference to the respondents brief in opposition to the cert petition, which supports the statement.
In the sentence that begins with "After winning judgments by default ...", the footnote at the end of this sentence should cite pp. 6-8.
Changed.
In that same sentence, the article says "but with a clear evidentiary basis for Iran's liability, they sought writs of execution ...." This makes it sound like the "clear evidentiary basis" allowed them to obtain the writs of execution, but really, the clear evidentiary basis is what allowed them to obtain default judgment.
Changed to After winning judgments by default, based on a clear evidentiary basis for Iran's liability, they sought writs of execution against a Citibank account in New York connected with Iran's central bank.
I would change "The name-sake plaintiff" to "the named plaintiff" (in class actions, this would be called the "Lead plaintiff").
Done.
The article says that Peterson "won a judgment in 2001" and that the District Court entered default judgment against Iran in 2007. However, I would explain the procedural history a little differently. It looks like the district court made a determination about liability in 2003 and then made a determination about the amount of damages to which the plaintiffs were entitled (per the reports of the special masters) in 2007. Can you (1) clarify that Peterson intiated proceedings in 2001 and did not recieve a judgment until 2003 and (2) clarify the difference between the 2003 determination of liability and the 2007 award of damages?
I changed 2001 to 2003, without noting that the proceedings began in 2001, and joined the sentences about the damages judgment with a semicolon and added "of damages" at the end. It now reads: The named plaintiff in the case, Deborah Peterson, is the sister of a victim of the Beirut barracks bombings; joined by victims and other relatives of victims, she had won a default judgment in 2003 against Iran for its role in the bombings. Because of the large number of plaintiffs in the case—almost  1,000—the judge appointed special masters to determine each plaintiff's right to collect damages and appropriate amount of damages; in 2007, the judge entered a default judgment against Iran for $2,656,944,877 in damages.
The new version of the text looks good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
For the sentence that begins "The account consisted of bonds" the footnote at the end of the sentence should cite p. 9 of the slip opinion.
Done.
For the quotation in the sentence that begins "In 2010, the plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit ..." you need to use internal quotation marks and because you cite the Second Circuit opinion in the footnote, I strongly recommend that you explain in the footnote that the Second Circuit quoted from the TRIA.
I closely paraphrased, but didn't quote the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit cited the bill that passed (Pub. L. No. 107-297) rather than the codified version of the bill (28 USC 1610). I added a citation to the bill.
When you say "there were concerns" about the availability of the funds, I would explain that Congress held these concerns, and the footnote at the end of that sentence should cite p. 5 of the slip opinion.
I changed the reference to page 5. I don't know if it is correct to say that Congress held these concerns rather than the plaintiffs had these concerns and sucessfully persuaded Congress to enact §8772.
At some point in this section, you should explain that the writs of execution were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the location of the banks that held the assets) so that readers aren't confused by the citations to the proceedings in the D.C. district court.
I don't think there's a good way to add "United States District Court for the Southern District of New York" into this section and the courts are not particularly relevant in this section. At the end of the "After §8772 was enacted" section the courts are mentioned The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and awarded the assets to the plaintiffs. I doubt many readers would look at the citations (the DC district court is not mentioned in the prose) and be confused about which action occurred in which court.
Upon further reflection, I think you are correct. I would leave this as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


#### Section 8772
If you are quoting from the text of the statute, the word "is" in subd. (a)(1) is followed by a dash rather than a colon (see this version of the statute at the LII website).
Fixed.
For the sentence that begins "Section 8772 also specified ..." you need to use internal quotation marks and I recommend that you explain that SCOTUS was quoting section 8772.
I changed the citation to the relevant statute.


#### After § 8772 was enacted
As I mentioned in my comments for the lead section, I don't know if it is correct to say that section 8772 abrogated all of Iran's defenses. For example, Iran could have argued that it had a constitutionally protected interest in the assets.
See the response to the same issue in the "Lead" section.
For the sentence that begins "Bank Markazi conceded ..." you need to use internal quotation marks and I recommend that you explain that SCOTUS was quoting section 8772.
I added an inline citation to the code (", per §8772(a)(2)(A),") so that the sentence now reads, in part, Bank Markazi conceded that they held "equitable title to, or beneficial interest in, the assets", per §8772(a)(2)(A), but then claimed...


#### Opinion of the Court
You need to include a citation to the slip opinion after the first sentence of this section. Otherwise, readers may think that they could find a summary of Justice Ginsburg's analysis in the docket (which is cited after the following sentence).
I included a citation to the majority opinion without adding a page number (Template:Rp) so that the citation is to the entire majority opinion.
Also, in that same sentence, I wouldn't use the phrase "especially considering that" because the "authority over foreign affairs" argument was not central to the Court's analysis (i.e. that in the past, the Court has upheld laws that direct outcomes of specific cases).
I've adjusted that part of the sentence to read ...considering also that the law is an exercise...
In the "say what the law is" quotation, I know that the article says that the Court quoted from Marbury v. Madison, but I still think you need to either use internal quotation marks or note in the footnote that internal quotation marks are omitted.
I added an internal single quotation mark (and fixed the reference page from 9 to 12, which you missed).
The "may not usurp a court's power ..." quotation also needs internal quotation marks and you need to tell readers that the modification to the quotation can be found in the slip opinion.
This now has the footnote Bank Markazi, slip op. at 12 (internal citations omitted)
In the third paragraph, for the "the legislature may prescribe ..." you should use internal quotation marks and explain that Justice Ginsburg's opinion is quoting Klein.
This now has internal quotation marks and the footnote is Bank Markazi, slip op. at 15 (quoting Klein, 13 Wall., at 146).
For the quotation in the sentence that begins "The majority explained that the contemporary significance of Klein ..." you need to (1) indicate internal quotations, (2) indicate modifications to the quotation and explain if alterations that appear in the source have been omitted, and (3) identify the original source of this quoted language.
?This now has the footnote Bank Markazi, slip op. at 15 n. 19 (internal citations omitted). Is that adequate?
Yes, that looks good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The same goes for the quotation in the following sentence ("not a sufficient reason for a court to fail to give that law its intended scope.").
I added internal quotation marks and the footnote Bank Markazi, slip op. at 16 (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 267–268 (1994))
The form of citations at the end of block quotations is not consistent with the form of citations in the footnotes. At the very least, they should be consistent, and I don't think you need to include both an inline citation after the block quotation and a footnote. However, I like that you used an explanatory parenthetical to tell readers that the block quotation includes language that was taken from Landgraf.
The citations at the end of the block quotes are consistent with the citations in the footnotes. Eg.:
At end of block quote: Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 16 (2016)(quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266–267 (1994))
In footnotes: Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, 578 U.S. ___, slip. op. (2016)
Thinking about this issue, would it be preferable to use short citations at the end of the block quote, eg. Bank Markazi, slip op. at 16 (2016)(quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266–267 (1994)) ??
The inconsistency is a result of the fact that the footnotes provide pinpoint citations in superscript next to the number of the footnote, rather than in the text of the footnote itself (e.g. [2]:15 vs. Bank Markazi, slip op. at 16). I recommend using short citations after the block quotations, as you suggest above, while omitting footnotes after these citations. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed the citations at the end of block quotes in the Opinion of the Court section to short citations and removed the footnotes. AHeneen (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


#### Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion
See below for my comments for this section. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

To keep things consistent with the block quotation in the preceding section, I would also remove the footnote after the citation that follows the block quotation. The same goes for the citation at the end of the block quotation at the end of this section.
I have removed the footnotes at the end of all block quotes in the article. AHeneen (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
For the block quotation at the beginning of this section, I have two suggestions: First, I would italicize "fait accompli" to keep things consistent with the source material. Second, I would either start a new paragraph at "That question lies at the root of the case ..." or keep the entire block quotation in a single paragraph (again, this is to maintain text-source integrity).
Done. AHeneen (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
For the sentence that begins At the time of the framing of the Constitution ..." the footnote at the end of the sentence does not follow the same citation convention as others in the paragraph (the pin-cite is identified in the text of the footnote, rather than in superscipt alongside the numbered footnote). The same problem occurs in other footnotes in this section too (see, e.g., footnotes 46 and 47).
 Comment: The reason for this is that I was trying to avoid changing the entire article to short footnotes. See our conversation at Talk:Bank Markazi v. Peterson#Citations to the slip opinion. I changed these footnotes (the ones without a superscript using Template:Rp) after your partial review last weekend...see first comment under "state immunity" and similar ones throughout your earlier comments): In this article, when the SCOTUS opinion cites other sources (cases, statutes, etc.), I strongly encourage you to explain in the footnote that the opinion is citing another source. For example, when you say that the FSIA has "an exception ... for victims of state-sponsored terrorism", I would write the footnote like this: Bank Markazi, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1)).
In the first few sections of this article, I tried to address your comment by changing the citation footnote from a citation to the slip opinion to a citation to the specific law. When I reached the "Opinion of the court" section, that proved impractical, so I added footnotes that include the correct citation, eg. Bank Markazi, slip op. at 7 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman SS Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113 (1948)). Doing that is impractical in the superscript. I realize that it would be better to change the entire article to short footnotes, but that is a major task and I hope that for now what I did is acceptable. I'm not trying to be a pain, just putting off the labor-intensive job of changing the footnote style to shortened footnotes. AHeneen (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that the current state of the references in this article is okay. Of course, it would be ideal to have consistency, but the important thing is that readers will be able to identify where the material comes from. You have put so much hard work into this article added such excellent content, I would almost say that this would be a time to invoke WP:IAR with respect to GA criteria. In any event, I really don't mean to cause you extra work; in the ongoing efforts to achieve the best of all possible worlds, I think we should always strive to make citations as precise as possible, and I hope that my comments haven't cause undue stress or hardship. I very much appreciate your hard work and diligent efforts! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
When you omit internal quotation marks, you should say in the footnote "internal quotations omitted." The phrase "internal citation omitted" simply means that you omitted a citation that was printed in the source material. For example, if the opinion in Joe v. Schmoe said "The constitution protects the right to privacy.  Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)." and you wrote "In Joe v. Schmoe, the Court affirmed the 'right to privacy.'" then you should say in your footnote "internal citations omitted."
OK. I did not know that.
I noticed that there were one or two occasions in which you wrote "United States" as "U.S." so just make sure that these are all consistent.
Done. "U.S." is now used consistently throughout the article, except in the "title" parameter of citation templates (so that it matches the punctuation of the source). AHeneen (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


#### Iranian reactions
See below for my comments for this section. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

In the opening sentence, you should use internal quotation marks when the language appears in quotation marks in the source from which you are quoting.
 Comment: I guess that this is per Bluebook format for quotations, but is that really appropriate? Here, the quotes are what the individuals said, so I don't really don't see a reason for adding internal quotation marks based on the usual use of internal quotation marks on Wikipedia. See generally MOS:QUOTE.
My understanding of MOS:QUOTE is that internal quotation marks are an important component of accurately reproducing the source material; by using internal quotation marks, you are showing the reader that the quoted source actually got that language from somewhere else. In any event, this is not a strict GA requirement, so if you feel strongly about keeping these as-is, then that's okay for the purposes of this GA review. I will still promote the article, though again, I think it is a good editorial practice (see also MOS:QWQ). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Since you are using "U.S." to refer to the United States, make sure that this is applied consistently in this section as well (e.g. "US" should be "U.S.").
I had previously changed all US occurrences to "U.S." in the prose, but not in the "title" parameter of the footnote templates so that the spelling & punctuation of the footnotes matches the source (there may have been a couple sources that had the article title in all-caps, which I may have changed to proper title case). A search of the article (using "find" function of my web browser) shows that the only cases of " US " (with spaces on each side) are in the footnotes.
Thanks for following up with this; nice work! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the word "plunder" should be placed within internal quotation marks.
? See above comment about internal quotation marks.
This is not critical for passing this GA review, but I think it is good idea (see my response above). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
For the citation to the U.N. Treaty Series, it looks like you list the volume number as "273" but the volume printed on the front of the PDF says "284."
I don't know how that happened. It has been corrected to volume 284, page 93 (it begins on page 103 of the PDF file, if you'd like to verify).
The first sentence of the second paragraph includes two citations to the same source in the same sentence; I think it is sufficient to use a single footnote at the end of the sentence.
I could have sworn that there was a policy that required a citation immediately after all quotes, which is why I included the footnote at the end of the quote. Unless there is just a couple words separating the end of a quote and the end of its sentence or a list of quotes (see first sentence of "Iranian reactions"), I have always included a source at the end of a quote. That is especially important because, over time, editors may come along and adjust the text in such a way that the citation gets separated from the quote. However, I browsed Wikipedia:Citing sources and MOS:QUOTES and cannot find any policy directly supporting that, so I have adjusted the sentences per your comment (I have added a hidden comment with the ref at the end of the quotes).
You make an excellent point about editors coming along and breaking-up sentences; I hadn't considered that possibility until just now. Feel free to disregard my comment if you think it is better to keep the second citation in the sentence. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The same goes for the second sentence in the third paragraph.
I removed the footnote after "appropriate legal action". I kept the footnote after "emergency bill" (first sentence), because it is a long sentence and that quote is a long distance from the footnote at the end of the sentence.
Per my comment above, feel free to restore the footnote. You make a really good point about other editors coming and breaking up sentences. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
"Appropriate legal action" should be placed in internal quotation marks.
? See above comment about internal quotation marks.
This is not critical for passing this GA review, but I think it is good idea (see my response above). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph, the word "reckless" should also be placed inside internal quotation marks.
? See above comment about internal quotation marks.
This is not critical for passing this GA review, but I think it is good idea (see my response above). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
For the second sentence of the fourth paragraph, I think it is sufficient to place a single footnote to the Financial Tribune article at the end of the sentence.
I removed the footnote at the end of "reckless".
The Seif quotation in the following sentence should also be placed inside internal quotation marks.
? See above comment about internal quotation marks.
This is not critical for passing this GA review, but I think it is good idea (see my response above). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a few suggestions for the sentence that states "There has also been criticism for investing in a hostile country." First, I wouldn't cite to the Financial Tribune article because I don't think it characterizes the United States as a "hostile" nation. Second, if the basis for this sentence is the Arman-e Emrooz headline, then I would re-phrase this sentence to say that at least one commentator believes that officials who served in the Ahmadinijad regime should be prosecuted for investing money in the United States, and if you feel strongly about keeping the work "hostile," I would place it inside quotation marks.
The quote is found in the Al-Monitor, which is one of the citations at the end of the first sentence of that paragraph. Perhaps I confused citations when editing this paragraph. The sentence is supported solely by the Al-Monitor article and now reads: Hamid Baeidinejad, a senior Foreign Ministry official, criticized the former head of the CBI for investing in a "hostile country"
I like the way this is written now. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the fact that you have included a paragraph in which you cite commentators who blame the former Iranian regime, but for the sake of balance, I think it is important to include reaction from the United States as well. This may need to be in its own section, or you may want to re-title this section "Reactions from Iran and the United States," but you should certainly try to incorporate perspectives of commentators who defend the Supreme Court's ruling, per WP:WEIGHT. For example, these sources could be incorporated:
Mark Toner's statement that "the U.S. laws and the application of those laws by the courts of the United States comport with international law."
Ted Olson's statement that the ruling will "bring long-overdue relief."
Statements from Mark Dubowitz and Steve Vladeck
Deborah Peterson's statement that "those who are responsible have been brought to the justice ."
Jimmy Gurulé's statement that the Court's ruling may "cause Iran to think twice about supporting terrorist activity going forward."
I will add a section about US reactions in the next couple of days.


#### Impact on US-Iran relations
See below for my comments for this section. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of this section says "reactions to the ruling were not based on the American legal principles involved in the Supreme Court's decision ...." I would recommend removing this portion of the sentence because none of sources cited at the end of the sentence state that reactions were "not based on the American legal principles."
That's correct, the sentence was inappropriate WP:SYNTHESIS. The first sentence now reads: The decision came at a delicate time for relations between Iran and Western nations, which were removing sanctions on Iran after its compliance with an agreement for curtailing development of its nuclear enrichment program.
The way this is now written looks good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The final sentence of the first paragraph of this section mentions that Saudi Arabia was found to be immune from liability under the FSIA in a suit alleging that the country was linked to terrorist activities. As it is written, the relationship of this fact to the subject of this section is unclear; you should explain in more detail how at least one commentator has cited the difference in outcome in those two rulings as an example of an official act by the U.S. that show disfavor toward Iran. To that extent, it is important to place this assertion within the voice of the commentator, and to not place the assertion in Wikipedia's voice.
I'll address this in the next couple of days.
The Zarif quotations in the following sentence should be placed inside internal quotation marks.
? See above comment about internal quotation marks.
This is not critical for passing this GA review, but I think it is good idea (see my response above). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The same goes for the "open hostility" quotation in the next sentence.
? See above comment about internal quotation marks.
This is not critical for passing this GA review, but I think it is good idea (see my response above). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In the final paragraph, where the article discusses the potential for the Court's decision to undermine American credibility, it is important to frame this claim as the opinion of one or two commentators, and to not to place the claim in Wikipedia's voice.
The Karkhaneh quotation in the final sentence needs to be placed inside internal quotation marks.
? See above comment about internal quotation marks.
This is not critical for passing this GA review, but I think it is good idea (see my response above). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned in my comments for the previous section, this section needs to be balanced by including reactions from the United States or others who defend to the Court's decision per WP:WEIGHT.
I'll address this in the next couple of days.


#### General comments
I will add comments for the last two sections over the next 24 hours. Please let me know if any of the above comments are unclear or if you have any questions. Thanks again for your strong work on this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've started addressing the issues. See comments above. AHeneen (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I think I've addressed most of the issues. I will work on the article to add appropriate footnotes where the SCOTUS opinion cites another source (I'll call these "secondary citations" to easily refer to them). In the sections prior to the "Opinion of the court", I've adjusted the footnote and/or the prose to cite where the quoted material comes from (see comments above). However, this isn't feasible in the "Opinion of the court" section. I started to write a comment asking if it would be ok to omit the secondary citations, but after re-reading the first comment in the "State immunity" section, I realize that adding secondary citations won't be too difficult. You won't need to mention every such occurrence when you add your comments for the "Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion" section.
One final thing to mention is that the article lacks a section covering the reaction from the legal community. I browsed all SCOTUSblog Round-up articles since the opinion announcement on 4/20 and searched the site for "Iran" and browsed several pages of results (results also turned up pages including "Miranda" and after several pages, no results related to Iran) and found:
SCOTUSblog 4/20 afternoon Round-up (articles are all news media coverage of the decision)
SCOTUSblog 4/21 round-up (has a link to one one law blog's reaction and one article that requires registration to view)
SCOTUSblog opinion analysis
This article has some substantial discussion of the case and can be added.
The GA criteria for scope says (emphasis added): 3. Broad in its coverage: a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [footnote 7:] The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Hopefully, you will find that the lack of reactions from the legal community is acceptable for reaching GA status per the emphasized phrase, although I plan to eventually add it to the article. This is one issue that may prevent this article from eventually reaching FA status. Finally, I may be busy during the next 7-8 days and not have time to promptly address any issues raised. AHeneen (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I have adjusted the footnotes in the "Opinion of the court" section to include citations that are found in the court's opinion (diff). The only issue is how is the footnote formatted to indicate that the punctuation has been adjusted (namely that brackets do or do not appear in the slip opinion). AHeneen (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I have addressed most of the issues raised. The only outstanding issues are:

How should footnotes be formatted to indicate that the punctuation has been adjusted (namely that brackets do or do not appear in the slip opinion).
Are internal quotation marks really appropriate in the last two sections? See first comment in the "Iranian reactions" section.
I will add a section about US reactions per last comment of the "Iranian reactions" section and address the other balance issues in the last couple of sections in the next couple of days.
And, of course, the citation style...namely, the lack of short citations throughout the article...but you indicated above that this would be OK. If I nominate this article for FA in the future, I will definitely change the article to use Bluebook-style short citations throughout the article. AHeneen (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: I have been busy this past week and probably will not have much spare time this weekend (family members are visiting from out-of-state, so I won't be able to sit at my computer editing Wikipedia and ignoring them). Could you please review the progress I've made towards fixing the article so far? I think the outstanding issues I mention just above this comment are the only things left to fix and a couple of them are questions. I will hopefully have time next week to add a section about reactions in the US. I will ping you so that you get a notification when I think everything has been addressed. AHeneen (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


#### Remaining items, as of 06/12/2016
@AHeneen: My apologies for not being more attentive to this review -- I have been absolutely swamped with work this month. You have done an outstanding job to address the comments in this review, and this article is really looking very good. As I mentioned in my comments above, consistency among citations and internal quotations are things that should be resolved in the future (especially if you plan to nominate this for FA status), but they are not part of the GA criteria. Therefore, there are only two things that still need to be done to promote this article to GA status (both are part of the "due weight" requirement):

Add perspectives of commentators who defend the Supreme Court's ruling.
For the "Impact on US-Iran relations" section, where relevant, make sure language is attributed to commentators (rather than stated in WIkipedia's voice).
I also agree that for the purposes of this GA review, the article doesn't need a section with reaction from the legal community. However, if you plan to nominate this for FA status in the future, then you should definitely add this section (the commentary by the George Washington Law Review is particularly insightful). Thanks again for your incredible hard work with this article. I hope all is well and that you are enjoying a nice weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: I have made additions to the article that I hope are sufficient.
I changed the "Political aftermath" section to "Subsequent developments" and added three short subsections: "Payout to plaintiff-respondents", "Legal community reactions", and "U.S. reactions". I have added most of what you suggested above. However, reaction in the U.S. was mostly praise for the ruling and so the section is nowhere near as long as the Iranian reactions section. I did add a counterpoint, quoting the State Dept. spokesman's reaction to the Iranian complaint to the U.N., in the "Iranian reactions" section.
I attributed one comment in the "Impact on US-Iran relations" section (diff) and don't see any other statements that need in-prose attribution.
AHeneen (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@AHeneen: Many thanks for your continued efforts with this article. I am proud to say that this article now passes all of the Good Article criteria. You have really done excellent work with this! I also would like to encourage you to nominate this article for FA status -- I think it is in excellent shape and I commend your efforts to expand coverage of SCOTUS cases on Wikipedia. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This is mainly a note to myself to collect sources that can be used to improve this article.
Legal community coverage of the decision:

[4]
[5]
SCOTUSblog opinion analysis
Vaguely-related cases:

Islamic Republic of Iran v. McKesson Corporation - Issue: (1) Whether the Treaty of Amity between the United States and Iran also provides a cause of action to sue the foreign sovereign in the courts of the company’s “home” country, so that respondent McKesson may sue Iran in the United States and an Iranian company may sue the United States in Iran
Bank Melli Iran NY Rep. Office v. Weinstein
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Other issues that the bank had raised against the constitutionality of §8772 are discussed in the cert petition on pp. 115a-121a (pp. 162-168 of the PDF file).
--AHeneen (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"In the article the term "Terrorism" or "terrorist act" is used to describe the event.
The definition of "terrorism" is clear, (The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).) 
The event that the article is about is the act of bombing a milliary installation were the target is milliary personnel, the term "terrorism" is not being used accurately here.
Either the term terrorism must change or the sources for the article that uses the term must be considered bias or unreliable.
I have not seen such contradiction withing the same article on any subject other than when it is about Iran. Only in these instances it is considered ok to write that the target was milliary personnel and milliary installation and then calling it terrorism. This would not be allowed for example if the article was about a drone strike that US have carried out on a wedding ceremony were a single terrorist also is attending. 
This is due to the fact that western media do not use the term terrorism to describe events similar to the example i used for different reasons. In this case all Iranian news media sources has been marked as unreliable thus no other point of view can be used as source in any article related to Iran. Gosale (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

These explanations are unsourced and possibly violate NPOV. They may also be original research as far as I know. There are no inline citations to verify if they are correct. Especially in light of the controversial and legal nature of these articles, it might be best to leave no explanation and leave the wikilinks bare. Laval (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, this article -- In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 -- doesn't even mention Iran or the allegations being brought against Iran. That article is terrible and needs work, but the explanation here is IMHO problematic and not helpful to the reader. Laval (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Laval I agree with you; I have removed the unsourced explanations and the tag. Lova Falk (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The article currently says the following, indicating that Iran is deciding whether to file suit at the ICJ: 

"Iran announced that they would file suit against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for reparations if the U.S. courts begin to "plunder" assets from the Citibank account to give to the winning plaintiffs.[6] However, the ICJ may not be able to hear the case. The U.S. withdrew its general recognition of the ICJ's jurisdiction in response to the ICJ's ruling in Nicaragua v. United States, but a 1955 friendship treaty between Iran and the U.S. gives the ICJ jurisdiction to rule on disputes arising from provisions of the treaty.[6][65] A working group has been established in the Iranian Cabinet to investigate the ruling and determine ways of reestablishing Iran's rights to the account.[66]"
However, Iran made that decision and did file suit, lodging its Application with the ICJ on June 14, 2016.  Since then there have been a number of developments in the case.  See Certain Iranian Assets.  I have a conflict so should not edit on this topic, but I think it is fair and objective for me to point out that the paragraph I quoted above is badly outdated and should be replaced with a new, current one about the ICJ case.
169.252.4.22 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)