Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive 1

message: I have created case citation templates that link to the full text of the decision. They are used as follows:
* General case citation: . For example, for Roe v. Wade, one would type: , which produces: 
* Specific citation: . For example: , which produces: 
— flamuraiTM 03:52, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
These case citation templates don't seem to be working on some of the more recently reported cases. Instead, findlaw seems to want a different number to actually find the case on their site. If you go to the list of cases, I've changed it so the link works, but it's obviously not the right citation. Sreed1234 00:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case citation templates 

message: I have cleaned the article up, and met NPOV concerns. Now, the article seems to me totally neutral, and very comprehensive and well-written. It includes a complete history of the case and it tracks the controversy as it has developed from the 1970s. Therefore, I have nominated it for featured status. See: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Roe_v._Wade. Support appreciated. At the very least, I think it can be taken off "intensive care." Noah Peters 07:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Roe v. Wade]] 

message: I'm new to this topic, having added articles for this week's decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Tenet v. Doe.  As time permits, I'll likely develop an article for United States v. Booker, which invalidates the minimum sentencing guidelines and has has major implications for the criminal justice system.
Anyway, I just modified the Roper v. Simmons article to delineate the dissent from the case decision. Now, I find this WikiProject and your Guidelines and article outline and see that you keep the case and the dissent together under one headline. 
However, I suggest for the article outline, that there be a separate heading for the dissent in the following situations:
*Only in those closely decided (5-4) decisions.
*For more recently decided cases and possibly older cases, when it merits.
I think that helps to ensure the articles are presented in Npov.  
As for Tenet v. Doe, the decision was unanimous and therefore, a heading/section for the dissent (there was none) is obviously inappropriate.  What do you think? - --Aude 15:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines and article outline

message: I've just wandered over to the "Project Collaboration Article" page linked from the SCOTUS page to see what the status is. In looking at the history of the page, it seems that it hasn't been edited since early December, 2004. Is the project dead in the water, or temporarily on hiatus? RidG  (talk)  22:20, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
From recent edits to the List of United States Supreme Court cases, Skyler1534 and Mateo_SA are still active with the topic. - --Aude 01:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PCA Status

message: Please check out User:Postdlf/court case infobox—this has been applied to dozens of case articles, and renders the prior organization listed on this project page at least in part obsolete.  I would like the project to be modified to incorporate this infobox, and unnecessary headers (such as "the bench") dropped.  If there are no objections, I will proceed to adapt the project guidelines accordingly.  Postdlf 17:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court case infobox 

message: Glad to see this getting off the ground. Sorry I ran away - I should have checked the watchlist more often.
I'd be happy to help out. I really like Postdlf's template, btw. --PrinceValium 05:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi all 

message: Can someone help us fix up this rather unusual supreme court case? - Ta bu shi da yu 08:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nix v. Hedden]] 

message: The suggested contents for the introduction don't really comply with standard Wikipedia practice or our objectives to inform and educate. Standard practice has the first paragraph or two containing the essence of the whole article, while the objective to inform and educate requires an early description of the case intended for lay people relatively uninformed about the legal system. Fortunately, there is a solution to hand, for SCOTUS itself provides its syllabus. For these reasons, I suggest that the introduction should use several paragraphs to cover the syllabus material in a way suitable for a lay audience. Then the article body can more freely cover the decision in the sort of depth needed by those who really need to understand all of the details. This way we can at least partially resolve the inevitable tension involved in a work which has to cover both lay levels of knowledge and more detailed professional summaries. Jamesday 03:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested contents

message: Because it's not clear on the project page, this is a straw poll on the preferred method of citations in court cases.  All examples but one are already implemented somewhere (and linked to in the example).  Vote for and against as many or few options as you want, giving reasons at will.  Feel free to add more options I didn't think about.  Some articles include linking to the year while some don't, but there was an opinion somewhere around here that suggested avoiding this as it clutters it up too much--if you like linking to the year, say so in your vote.  And I'd be happy to change the format to that voted on on as many pages as I can.  Telso 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, pardon me. I didn't even read the dates on these things. Oh well. --Hyphen5 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll: Case Citation styleguide 

message: ==== Example ====
Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
==== For ====
*It makes the most sense to me for the link behind the numbers to explain what the numbers mean.  It doesn't make sense for an off-site link to be anywhere other than a footnote or in the separate external links section.  Nor does it make sense that if someone is reading an article about the case that they'd immediately want to see the text of the case itself.  Articles about public domain books don't begin with a off-site link to Project Gutenberg.  Postdlf 07:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link only to "[[Case citation]]" (leave case in external links at bottom) 

message: *It makes the most sense to me for the link behind the numbers to explain what the numbers mean.  It doesn't make sense for an off-site link to be anywhere other than a footnote or in the separate external links section.  Nor does it make sense that if someone is reading an article about the case that they'd immediately want to see the text of the case itself.  Articles about public domain books don't begin with a off-site link to Project Gutenberg.  Postdlf 07:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For 

message: ==== Example ====
Lemon v. Kurtzman .
==== For ====
*Makes it easier for users to get to the text of the cases.  When they can see the facts of the case for themselves right away, then they're less likely to edit an important case out of an article, especially when it's being used to illustrate a controversial point (see the citation to the Lyons case in Los Angeles Police Department for an example). --Coolcaesar 07:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link only to case on Findlaw, using <nowiki>{{ussc}}</nowiki> 

message: *Makes it easier for users to get to the text of the cases.  When they can see the facts of the case for themselves right away, then they're less likely to edit an important case out of an article, especially when it's being used to illustrate a controversial point (see the citation to the Lyons case in Los Angeles Police Department for an example). --Coolcaesar 07:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For 

message: *The first link in the article should not be one that would take the reader out of Wikipedia entirely. Besides, I think only lawyers would expect that a click on this popularly unfamiliar set of number would take them to what is probably a very dense piece of legal prose. -- BD2412 talk 23:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against 

message: ==== Example (Canadian, but idea is similar) ====
R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, .
==== For ====
==== Against ====
*It would be confusing to give the citation twice, IMO DES (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to both using case citation twice 

message: *It would be confusing to give the citation twice, IMO DES (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against 

message: ==== Example ====
Nix v. Hedden Case citation: .
==== For ====
This seems like a reasonable approach. DES (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to both preceding Findlaw with "case citation:" 

message: This seems like a reasonable approach. DES (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For 

message: *I dislike this one precisely because it's neither Bluebook nor ALWD style.  Then every single time a lawyer discovers Wikipedia, the first thing they will try to do is fix the citations until someone directs them to the Manual of Style.  We need to take unintended consequences into consideration!  --Coolcaesar 02:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against 

message: ==== Example (fake case, used as example) ====
Smith v. Johnson 1 U.S. 1 (1776).
<article>
 
==== For ====
* GregAsche (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, pardon me. I didn't even read the dates on these things. Oh well. --Hyphen5 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to case citation and footnote to external link 

message: * GregAsche (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For 

message: *This looks cluttered to me, and might confuse people about how to properly cite a case. --Hyphen5 04:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, pardon me. I didn't even read the dates on these things. Oh well. --Hyphen5 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against 

message: I've also noticed two info boxes being used in SCOTUS cases, the first much more prevalent than the second (although you can't tell because the template itself isn't used in the article, just the formatting, and so there's no link to the template in "what links here", my personal experience has shown the first one is used much more often).  They are essentially the same, but the template of the first seems less complete than the second (less is coded in that template).  The short-comings of either can probably be easily fixed and because they're templates they can easily be switched, so really all that matters is the layout/visual appearance and ubiquity.  Which do you like better?  And if you wish, how could we improve either.  Telso 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Lochner v. New York for a good example of how this version's modularity works well.  See Marbury v. Madison for a good example of how the other version's lack of modularity leads to awkwardness.  You're stuck with a line for "dissent" even though none was written, and it's stuck in the last position, even though the line about the justices that did not participate in the case should instead go last.  And if there is more than one dissent?  And if the lead opinion was a plurality rather than a majority?  The other template simply fails to encompass those possibilities.  Postdlf 07:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll: SCOTUS box 

message: # Telso 21:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Lochner v. New York for a good example of how this version's modularity works well.  See Marbury v. Madison for a good example of how the other version's lack of modularity leads to awkwardness.  You're stuck with a line for "dissent" even though none was written, and it's stuck in the last position, even though the line about the justices that did not participate in the case should instead go last.  And if there is more than one dissent?  And if the lead opinion was a plurality rather than a majority?  The other template simply fails to encompass those possibilities.  Postdlf 07:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:SCOTUSCase]] 

message: # I like this one because of the visual style, and because it has a court membership and opinions box, but since the other one is in much wider use, I would be willing to change my vote if someone adds court membership and opinion sections to the first template (whoa runon sentence). -GregAsche (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:United States Supreme Court Case]] 

message: Can someone tell me if this is under the correct article title? Doesn't look like it is. - 203.134.166.99 06:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help on [[Civil Rights Cases]] 

message: Per the general consensus against abbreviations in category names, I've nominated all "U.S. case law" categories to be renamed as "United States case law" categories - please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 02:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category changes 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. I see you have several lists of cases - do you have a list of the best articles, or the most important cases?  I note that Brown v. Board of Education underwent peer review and it looks like a possible A-Class, do you agree?  I see that Roe v. Wade is an FA, this and any other FAs would be suitable as well. Please post your comments and suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 04:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm personally fond of United States v. O'Brien.  ; )  Postdlf 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that looks well-written and referenced. Keep the suggestions coming! :) Gflores Talk 01:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Texas v. Johnson was the last court case article that was a FA.  I haven't looked at it in awhile to see if its integrity has lasted.  Postdlf 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Lawrence v. Texas was the FA I was trying to remember...  Postdlf 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, it has been added to our listing. Walkerma 05:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: Since the article was moved, I've changed all the links to it here to reflect the actual article under discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court citation --> case citation

message: I added three articles to the List of U.S. Supreme Court Cases:
* United States v. Hudson and Goodwin 
* Cort v. Ash,  
* Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation,  
Please tell me what you think, and feel free to edit them as necessary.
--Eastlaw 06:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My First Three Articles!

message: The Supreme Court Historical Society has thoughtfully picked 411 winners from the last half century. Some we have, many we don't. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, however - the 411 cases include selections based not only on their importance qua cases, "but also examples of effective appellate advocacy." The full list can be found at http://www.supremecourthistory.org/03_how/subs_links/03_c02.html. RidG Talk 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource for deciding which cases to add next. 

message: Has anyone noticed how bad our article on McConnell v. FEC is? How do I nominate it for a project collaboration? (I'm new to the group.) --Hyphen5 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[McConnell v. FEC]]'' 

message: The article on Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group seems rather POV, and needs an infobox and more details.  It needs to give better reasoning than "The Court has provided no rationale for its decision, except to argue that nuclear energy was more important than civil rights such as equal protection."
I've been a bit busy lately (and I hope to have at least one brand-spanking-new article in the works) so hopefully you folks can pick through this one.  --Eastlaw 05:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group'' 

message: I'm making an infobox for supreme court case. It can currently be found on my user page at User:CyberSkull/Template:US Supreme Court Case. Please feel free to comment/edit it. I think it is almost ready for use in wikipedia. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's similar in look to one we've already rejected, in discussion above.  The current standard is the one seen at Jones v. Flowers, as well as dozens of other SCOTUS cases.  Or view it in template form at Marshall v. Marshall.  Postdlf 00:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see how your doing it, a piecemeal approach. Just please don't subst it onto pages. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Before any decisions are made, here is a comparison with Miller:
	
The only advantage to yours is that it's smaller, but that's only because you've made it harder to read by removing the organizational features; you've made all of the text small (thus making the procedural history and citations of equal visual import as the holding and Court membership) and took out the more attractive blue header bars (which I patterned after the taxoboxes used for organism articles, as seen in lizard).  Postdlf 18:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Postdlf for two reasons. First, I find the version with larger text and blue tinted headers easier to read and comprehend. Second, we need to establish uniformity among our cases, and many more now use the blue-header infobox template, so it would create needless work to change those out. Also, the sectional version does not force a useless "dissent by" line into a case where there was no dissent. bd2412 T 01:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox US Supreme Court Case