Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive 2

message: I have been working on Portals for a while, and have put together a proposed new portal to cover U.S. Government topics.  The proposal is at Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#United_States_Government, with a mock-up of the portal at User:Kmf164/United States Government.  For a better idea of how portals work, check out Wikipedia:Featured portals.  My thoughts were to use part of the portal to highlight featured articles and pictures.  Another part of it could highlight current events (news stories, as well as things like current/pending legislation, nominations, Supreme Court cases/decisions, etc.).  The third part could be some topic directory.  The last section could highlight WikiProjects and things to do. I'd like to know if has suggestions on improving the draft.  Also, would anyone here be interested in helping to maintain it, should it be approved.  Maintenance would most importantly involve keeping the current events updated, but also choosing articles and pictures to feature, maintaining the list of articles/categories, etc.  I think the best place to provide input is at User_talk:Kmf164/United_States_Government. Thanks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed portal

message: I just created this to summarize all per curiam opinions by the Court for the current term.  These are ones for which writing a full article would be unnecessary, because the opinions are relatively short and do not establish new law.  I'm going to make redirects for each case pointing to this.  This only includes opinions, not unelaborated decisions such as denials of cert. (which number in the thousands per term) or decrees in suits of original jurisdiction.
Please help me improve the introductory text explaining why these opinions are separate in this manner, and improve the formatting and style, which future articles for past terms can follow.  Postdlf 18:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 term]] 

message: All of the lists in this category are lists of cases by volume of the United States Reports; e.g., List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 5, etc.  I think these should be renamed to clarify what volume they are in, as the S. Ct. and L. Ed. reporters obviously have volumes as well.  List of United States Supreme court cases in United States Reports volume 5?  The category could simply be renamed to :Category:United States Supreme Court cases by United States Reports volume.  Thoughts?  Postdlf 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I have the same question I had about the per curiam cases. What's the point? Is the idea just to have an complete list of every SCOTUS case, even if we don't have articles on all (most) of them? --Kchase02 (T) 06:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases]] 

message: There was one idea I liked from the old project that never seems to have come to fruition - the Project Collaboration Article, or collaboration toward improving a significant Supreme Court decision to a featured article status. I would be happy to see this brought back; what do you guys think? RidG Talk 00:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I put in the first vote at the PCA page. Even if it's just you and me, collaborative work is often a lot more fun. --Kchase02 (T) 06:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding. However, I can't seem to find your vote at the PCA page (or perhaps I am looking in the wrong place). Where did you vote? RidG Talk 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases/PCA Voting is section 1.2, and add your name to section 2 (wikipedians involved). --Kchase02 T 20:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, somehow missed it the first time around. Thanks. The line-item veto case sounds fine; how should we split up the work? RidG Talk 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborations 

message: How are we sorting cases at List of United States Supreme Court cases? Is it (a) by year and then alphabetically, or (b) by year and then by citation (so chronologically throughout)? --Kchase02 (T) 02:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting the list 

message: I've been trying to figure out how to classify the different opinions the Court hands down.  The term list of opinions at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html includes every case for which full argument was had and a substantive decision rendered, but it also includes per curiams, decrees in original jurisdiction cases (Alaska v. United States), and some completely insubstantial decisions to dismiss cert. as improvidently granted (Maryland v. Blake), or to vacate and remand for consideration in light of a new case (Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams).  Are these all grouped together because these are the opinions which the Court announces from the bench, or is there another critiera?  Are other decisions such as denials of cert. and orders on motions for amicus participation, etc., not announced from the bench?  The SCOTUS procedures article doesn't explain this (yet).  Postdlf 16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bench opinions? 

message: How is this defined and is it really useful? Most infoboxes seem to only have a few statues and constitutional clauses listed there. It seems misleading to so simplify each case that the court appears to be simply applying these particular laws, when they are in fact applying many more, and applying other legal decisions as well, which are themselves applications of laws. To accurately list the "laws applied" cannot be done in an infobox. This needs to be renamed or deleted. -- Centrx 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the first person to express this confusion about the header name, btw.  It's meant to just note the laws that are involved in the Court's holding, so only one or a few statutes or constitutional clauses are listed because those are what the cases are about.  Applied precedents are omitted because those are often too frequent to list concisely, and it isn't always clear which decisions the Court actually applied and which ones it just discussed, so it's inappropriate data for an infobox (a court decision isn't properly termed a "law" anyway).  And it isn't misleading simplification to not list the background clutter such as the jurisdictional statutes, the FRCPs, etc., that were incidentally involved, but had no dispositive effect on the outcome of the case (if that's what you mean by the "many more" that are actually applied).  Contrast a case in which 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is simply the technical means by which the action was first filed in federal court with one in which the very issue before the Court is whether a federal question has been raised.  Postdlf 02:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict, though Postdlf answered the above) There's something of an answer at User:Postdlf/court case infobox, which explains every part of the box. The infobox is partially intended for lawyers, so not all of it need be understandable for the layman, especially that part.--Kchase02 T 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the article text will explain everything and include a broader view of the decision and everything involved; the infobox is just there for data.  Postdlf 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In virtually every case brought before the Supreme Court, one party is alleging either that the actions of the other party are in violation of a specific statute or constitutional clause, or that a statute is at odds with such a clause. This tells which statute or clause the Court had to interpret to arrive at its resolution. bd2412 T 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas the cases used as precedents always have specific, clear guidance as to their application? -- —Centrx→talk 03:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your response - when the Court hears a case, the parties are asking the Court to determine the meaning of a statute or of the Constitution. While they invariably cite case law as precedent for the interpretation, it is a statute or Constitutional provision as to which the Court is making a judgment. bd2412 T 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: "Laws applied" 

message: Our current Project Collaboration Article is Clinton v. City of New York. I've already msged the creator and primary editor, Centrx (from the section just above) to let him/her know. I should have something on the article's talk page in a few minutes.--Kchase02 T 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PCA started

message: Does anyone have their law school casebooks? I'd like to get a list of cases commonly used in textbooks for completeness. bd2412 T 02:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawkins v. McGee, the only case I remember from Contracts. Peyna 02:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I know it's not a Supreme Court case, but it might as well have been.) Peyna 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casebook cases 

message: I would like to announce the creation of a new Infobox for Supreme Court cases,  Template:SCOTUSCase3, created by User:MZMcBride.  It combines Template:SCOTUSCase and RecentCase and all of the templates those two templates currently use.  It uses "hidden parameters" to hide the fields not used in the particular article.  Thus, it allows for a "super Template" that will fit all diffent types of cases.  Check it out and give your two cents on the conversion that will likely take place to make this Template the sole Infobox for the project.--Assawyer 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New 'Super' Infobox! 

message: Lovell v. Griffin has a page now. It wasn't exactly "exhaustive," and it still might need a Supreme Court template, but... well. I think it's okay. Lemonsawdust 12:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the appropriate categories and template, SCOTUSCase3.--Assawyer 13:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yayy, thank you Lemonsawdust 04:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovell v. Griffin 

message: I've worked for the past month to update Portal:United States and keep it better maintained.  Though, I think the portal would be even better with broader participation.  One way to do that is instead of choosing the "selected article" myself each week, if others would nominate articles and help make decisions.  (same goes for pictures, though these are stocked up through July 29)  Articles about U.S. law and Supreme Court are more than welcome on the portal, as it's intended to cover all topics relating to the United States.  If you would like to nominate or weigh in on what should be featured, please visit the portal. Thanks. -Aude (talk contribs) 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominate articles for [[Portal:United States]]

message: Thanks to the standard found in an old version of Template:SCOTUS-case (which I recently changed to cite.php), most of our cases have a footnote from the first sentence to an external link in the opinion. However, the ref templates that we previously used, like , etc. seem to have become deprecated, so that the links work bottom-up but not top-down (like at Stewart v. Abend). Unless anyone has a better idea, I'm going to begin going through our old cases and changing them to match the current template (cite.php) so that the ref links will work. The link to the opinion will be in references instead of external links.--Kchase02 T 20:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixing deprecated ref templates 

message: There are at least ten flawed links in place as of July 9th, 2006.  I had examined volumes # 40 through #91.  Flawed links were in volumes # 58, # 60, # 68, # 70, # 72, # 73, # 75, # 76, # 78, # 79, #80, and # 81.  For example, there is a case named Stewart v. United States in 1855 and United States v. Stewart 1856, and a completely different case titled Stewart v. United States in 2005.  The links in volumes # 58 and # 60 point to the 2005 case.  In volume # 73, The Battle points to Battle (disambiguation).  The link might be re-named thusly: The Battle (SC), where SC indicates "Supreme Court case."  Some sort of remedy is needed, because more flawed links will be generated (innocently).  Superslum 14:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a case like The Battle (which is a real rarity for case names) I'd say either put it at The Battle (case) or The Battle (YEAR). bd2412 T 18:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flawed links exist 

message: With over 30,000 total U.S. Supreme Court cases, there are more than a few duplicate common names for  cases. An often cited example is Miller v. California. 
Q1: With more than one case that matches that name, if other case pages were to be created for others, what is the naming convention to be used? I haven't seen anybody really talk about this issue, and I think it's very important. For the above example, Miller v. California was decided in 1961, 1968, & 1973 (and possibly once more). So, Miller v. California, 1961, Miller v. California (1961), and Miller v. California (case) among many other choices could be used. I want to hear what people prefer.
Q2: Some cases have names such as Commander-in-chief, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 43 (1864). For obvious reasons, the page name can not be the name of the case. As above, what should the naming conventions for case names like this be? Commander-in-chief (case), Commander-in-chief, 1864, Commander-in-chief (1864), or many other possible chocies. I want to hear what people think so that cases can become more uniform in their naming method.
--MZMcBride 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some cases show up twice or more because there were subsequent decisions involving the same dispute.  The Turner cable system lawsuit against the FCC mandated must carry rules generated to Supreme Court decisions and are called within the cable TV law circle as simple Turner I and Turner II.  This type of duplication should be distinguished from two cases with the same names but involving entirely new litigants.  (same name by coincidence, there are Reynolds cases: one in 1948 involving the state secrets privilege from discovery and the late 1800s case involving Mormon polygamy.) Bona Fides 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely think we should go with Party v. Party (year) (or In re Party (year) where one party is named). Putting (case) seems confusing and will not work where there are simply multiple cases by the same name. We should instead lock it into one regime, and year in parens being most like the way cases are properly cited/reported should be it. bd2412 T 18:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in agreement with Kchase and BD.  Postdlf 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm voting for Party v. Party (year), etc. When does the voting end and this become the naming convention? Also, should pages such as Miller v. California be moved to Miller v. California (1973), with Miller v. California becoming a disambiguation page?  --MZMcBride 02:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1973 obscenity decision is what most people are going to be looking for under that title, so under general Wikipedia disambiguation policy it doesn't need to be moved.   Template:Otheruses would go at the top to point to Miller v. California (disambiguation) for the lesser known cases.  Postdlf 04:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: Thought everyone involved in the project would be interested in seeing this.  While these lists could be improved (chiefly by changing the title), they obviously need to be kept.  Postdlf 03:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right after I moved the volume 5 list article to List of United States Supreme Court cases in United States Reports volume 5, I suddenly wondered why these shouldn't just be moved to a simpler title: List of cases in United States Reports volume 5?  Isn't stating the court unnecessary, considering that the U.S. Reports only covers SCOTUS cases?  Although I seem to remember that the first four volumes were actually a collection of other court cases that were considered valuable precedent...  Thoughts?  Postdlf 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with List of cases in United States Reports volume 5 - virtually all cases listed will be U.S. Supreme Court cases, and the handful of others will be clearly delineated as being otherwise. bd2412 T 17:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree here too.  Simple = good. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 18:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not responding to the AfD, I was out of town. I'm glad the articles were kept. When I created the pages, I used the same naming format as the List of United States Supreme Court cases. I think List of cases in United States Reports volume 5, etc. might not accurately portray to a reader that these are cases from the U.S. Supreme Court. The title sort of makes it seem like something else, unless you're familiar with topic. I don't care either way, as long as there's consensus. Also, whatever is finally chosen, there is a complete list at Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases that will need a find/replace. --MZMcBride 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35]] 

message: I proposed a new look for the case lists here. Please weigh in on what you think on that talk page. --MZMcBride 03:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New look for case lists 

message: Does anyone know how many different SCOTUS templates there are?  And where they're located?  If there are enough of them, we should probably create a category for them, to make them easier to find in the future.  (possible category: :Category:SCOTUS templates).
Templates I've found so far:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
 --Tim4christ17 08:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it, there are a lot of SCOTUS-related templates. How wide are the parameters? Some that I'm thinking of are , , and all the , etc. templates. There are also now-defunct templates that should probably be listed for deletion that are listed here. There are probably more, I'll keep thinking.... --MZMcBride 02:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCOTUS templates 

message: After seeing a couple attempts to categorize case articles by whether a certain justice filed an opinion, and the rather unwieldy manner in which the justice biography articles try to summarize far too many individual cases, I decided it would be better to construct lists for each justice of all opinions they have filed.  I have started these for eleven justices so far (the current Court membership plus Rehnquist and O'Connor), organized by term, and with room for summaries: what I have completed can currently be found in :Category:United States Supreme Court opinions by justice.  These not only include bench opinions, but also opinions relating to orders (such as dissents from the denial of certiorari, or recusal decisions) and in-chambers opinions (decisions regarding stays) that previously had no place in which they could be documented.  I've also figured out opinion counts and statistics for who joined their opinions the most and the least.  I'm very happy with how the formatting worked out (see Scalia's 2004 list or Alito's 2005 list for how they look when the opinion summaries are more filled in).  I have also created templates for each justice so far that will link to all other opinion articles.  Here is what I think still needs work:
# Most of the opinion summaries are still blank (comment tags within each article help indicate where in the tables this is to be done).
# The article names are rather unwieldy, but I don't know how much this can be corrected, given that the term and name of the court will need to be included.
# I still haven't figured out a proper format for state and lower federal court case lists; the voting habits and types of opinions filed will differ (see for example, my complete (?) list of O'Connor's reported state court opinions; it looks like she never wrote a dissent in Arizona).
# I haven't figured out how to integrate the opinion templates into the justice biographies; just stick them at the bottom with the succession boxes?
# I haven't resolved the category structure yet, which is complicated by the fact that (most of) the justices will (eventually) have lists for lower and state court opinions as well as SCOTUS opinions (so a simple "Opinions by X" structure won't work).
# I was rather inconsistent with what I put in the "issue" section; we need something standardized and simple, for better comparison and relation among opinions, yet not something too opaque or simplified.
# I have not yet incorporated external links to the full text of the opinions.
Won't this be a fun project to expand?  ; )  I'd love to see these as the basis for articles on how specific issues have been handled by each justice (e.g., Establishment Clause opinions by Antonin Scalia)—there are so many useful ways we can organize this information...  If you'd like to get started on new lists, I was using some templates in my user space to help construct them: User:Postdlf/statistics for the statistics section; User:Postdlf/casebegin to start the case table; and User:Postdlf/case for each opinion entry (just make sure you add a table close (|}) after the last opinion.  Postdlf 19:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this post after seeing your addition of the opinion templates to a couple articles.  You deserve somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 barnstars for this and all your work on the justices' opinions. :) · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 17:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables of opinions by justice 

message: I've compiled tables for the past five terms that illustrate what actions every justice took in every case the Supreme Court decided by bench opinion: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 terms.  I intended for these to be complementary to the current lists we have, as these function primarily as voting records, and don't have info on what the issues in the cases were.  The visual format of the information allows a reader to see at a glance exactly what happened in a given case, to compare how divisive the Court's views are over the course of a term and from term to term, and to compare voting records of individual justices to find consistent patterns.  I have not yet incorporated external links to the full text of the opinions.  Postdlf 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of opinions by term 

message: Is there a good template I could use for an article on an Appelate or other Federal court case? --Tim4christ17 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of one, but if it doesn't exist, one could always be created.... --MZMcBride 01:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appelate Court template? 

message: I'm in the process of writing an article for Graham v. John Deere Co., , one of the requested articles on intellectual property.  I have JPEG images of the patent diagrams involved in the case, but ironically enough, I was wondering if the inclusion of these images in the article would cause any copyright problems.  I'm pretty sure that once images and documents are put into evidence in a court case, they go into public domain, but I would like to hear from the copyright experts here as to whether or not that is correct.
Thanks for your help.  --Eastlaw 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures in U.S. Supreme Court articles 

message: Could the WP SCOTUS banner include options for assessment (i.e. class and importance)? Most of the other WikiProjects use those options to their great advantage. mwazzap 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this might not be a bad idea. Are there any WikiProjects that you know of that have good systems in place now that could be used as a guide? Also, it would be nice to have a new PCA.... --MZMcBride 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CVG has a basic one at Template:Cvgproj. WP:WPBIO has a more complex one at Template:WPBiography. In addition to class and importance, it allows work-groups to be set, and more importantly, notes if the article needs an infobox . Examples for work-groups for WPSCOTUS articles would be groups based on the subject matter of the case or groups based on who was the Chief Justice at the time of the case. mwazzap 07:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Template:Cvgproj doesn't seem to have a ranking system. The Template:WPBiography is complex stuff, but could be reworked to fit this project. What specific fields would be used (list below), and would there be a ranking system in WP:BIO or would there just be indicators of what work is need on the article (e.g. needs infobox)? On a side note, is anyone tied to the current background color? The current color doesn't really appeal to me.  --MZMcBride 20:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Template:Cvgproj does have a ranking system. Check the source. As for fields to use, as I said before, I would suggest using: 1) class, 2) importance, 3) needs-infobox. I don't quite understand your second question. There is a generial rating system at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment, though I suggest you use your own examples. mwazzap 20:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the "flag" option for? --Tim4christ17 13:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag option is a little device in which you a person is able to mark a page that has a specific issue that needs to be looked at by a member of this WikiProject. It adds the page to a category called :Category:Flagged U.S. Supreme Court articles that can be watched. It was implemented for issues such as an infobox that somebody may need help with or issues with formatting. A person can flag the page, and receive help without having to put a request on this page or on the article talk page where it may not be seen/noticed. I don't know if it will be used very often, but it's there in case somebody wants to use it. --MZMcBride 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent job! That's much better. I really should learn how to code in...whatever language Wikipedia uses...someday. mwazzap 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful banner!  That flag option, esp. would be helpful on several other WikiProject banners.  --Tim4christ17 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for the compliments. --MZMcBride 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP SCOTUS banner

message: The article for Smith v. Maryland desparately needs to be cleaned up.  Apparently, someone just copied and pasted the full text of the opinion from Findlaw.  --Eastlaw 13:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another cleanup project 

message: I've recently expanded Template:WP SCOTUS, a template that serves to help users tag articles based on relative importance and quality. I essentially just lifted the text from Wikiproject Biography's similar template, but I need some help. The text gave examples of articles of varying levels of quality, and I wasn't able to come up with similar examples for SCOTUS-related articles. If someone could take care of this problem, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --Zantastik talk 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Assessment 

message: Not sure if this is the best place to request it, but an article on the important 1998 case of Swidler & Berlin v. United States (524 US 399 (1998)) would be very nice. It was an important case, ruling that attorney-client privilege does not end at death, and deserves its own article. Thanks a lot. Batmanand | Talk 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the page and added info to the infobox. I've also added the article to the To-do list. --MZMcBride 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Swidler & Berlin v. United States 

message: I apologize, I was way out of line last night.  Please accept it.  I recently received some bad family news and I think I was taking out some angst on this board, and that is not acceptable.
An issue I have is the lack of respect there is for attorneys; not just lack of respect, but hostility.  I understand why this is.  But the profession itself has become central to the running of our government and how we handle conflicts with each other.  Cynicism has become rampant today, taken for granted even, and it has ruinous effects on our culture and spirituality.  That's just my opinion.  But lumping all lawyers as plagarizers, or ambulance chasers, means we are denigrating our leaders, essentially.  Bad lawyers exist, but they aren't the vast majority of those who practice in the profession.  Which is why I started my Prominent Attorneys series.  Mark Barnes, Floyd Abrams, Anthony Gair, sportscaster Len Elmore and Mario Cuomo are coming, et. al.  Because of the community-based standards of Wikipedia, only the best and the brighest, or the noteable worst, can make it on.  I want to showcase the good attorneys.  Look at John Roberts or Byron White.  They were attorneys.  Outside the Court, there are attorneys who work in many spheres to better the world around them.  And they are important.  And it's important--for all of us--that we provide examples of what good attorneys look like; what they do.  That's my motivation.
On the Supreme Court issue:  lawyers are ranked; they are never seen as equal, most especially within the profession.  To be smart enough, to have your lawyering skills deemed worthy enough on a case to argue it when everything is on the line, requres a special person.  Their arguments either sway, or do not sway, and to mess up or be unprepared will kill your client's case. We need to make these people known; I feel it is information we have a responsibility to provide to the public.  Because these people shape our understanding of our rights and our government.  Jay Sekulow, David Boies, Alan Dershowitz, etc.  By demonstrating this on Wikipedia, we would be providing information that is not typically considered.  For a casual viewer, it pulls the curtain back on who works behind the scenes--just a little bit.  That is why I feel passionately about this issue.  --DavidShankBone 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we also include the name of the law clerk that wrote the opinion for the judge and possibly convinced the judge to rule a particular way? Peyna 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: David, I think your work on writing articles about notable attorneys is admirable.  Your motivation to showcase the best of the legal profession on Wikipedia has resulted in some excellent additions here, and I'm certain that it will continue.  I encourage you to continue working on articles about notable attorneys, as articles about these men and women are truly the best way to tell the world about some of the country's best professionals.  We have to be very careful, of course, to adhere to neutral point of view on Wikipedia (which can be somewhat difficult for those of us who spend our time forcefully advocating one side of a difficult issue). I agree with much of what you have to say--lawyers who argue before the SCOTUS generally are of a different ilk than the rest of us.  I say this even though we disagree on whether attorneys who argue before the Court are as notable as the Court members themselves.  But it seems to me that, so long as they meet notability guidelines, articles about these attorneys that are neutral, verifiable, and referenced should be our focus.  In other words, the best way to demonstrate their abilities and professionalism is in an article, not an infobox. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attorneys

message: I write what I think are impassioned and logical arguments.  If all of us are going to view ourselves as gatekeepers of knowledge, then we need to take that task seriously.  But I don't see that here.  Because I raise a very valid argument that many public personalities support, yet you all let it go unanswered.  I stand on the weight of my work, and I invite--goad--you all to look at my User page to view it.  I stand on the weight of what I've contributed to Wikipedia to ask for a very minor adjustment:  that the attorneys who argue before the Supreme Court receive acknowledgement.  So small, yet in my view, very significant.  That it goes unanswered, unaddressed, makes me wonder about Wikipedia:  will it ever be an accurate representation of what actually happens?  Theoretically, we aren't all spending our time here to "fuck around" but believe we are contributing to the public good.  There is absolutely now way, in my opinion, we can do that in our smal corner of the Supreme Court world when we dont' acknowledge the attorneys who present their cases.  The work we ALL do is on the line here - we either have personal agendas, or we have the desire to find truth and inform the public.  Which is it, guys?  I really wonder, after days of my posts going unanswered.  And, I present myself as a knowledgable person who is worthy of an answer.  --DavidShankBone 00:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone here is opposed to mentioning the attorneys (if they are worth mentioning) in the article.  The issue is whether they need to be in the infobox, which is already huge and cluttered.  There are a myriad of other ways to include the information.  The infobox is meant to provide a quick reference/summary for someone who doesn't want to read the whole article, and therefore, most likely won't have reason to care who argued the case.  If they were interested in that, they would read the whole article.  Infoboxes should be short, sweet, and to the point.  They shouldn't cover every detail of the topic. Peyna 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the first person to respond to you, and then I watched as this situation unfolded in a way I could have never imagined. I didn't forget about this issue, I let the post go dead because you kept flying off the edge. Shouting "I resign" and bolding every other point made me not want to have anything to do with you or this conversation. After thinking about this issue for several days, I'm going to agree with the post made directly above by User:Peyna, a summary of many other posts, that the infobox should remain the way it is. If you feel that attorneys should be mentioned in specific articles where the attorney was notable and had an impact on the case, please feel free to add their names to the text of the article and link to them, but without any consensus, the infobox should remain as is. Thanks. --MZMcBride 02:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What depresses me about the Supreme Court Wikipedia project