Talk:Moot court

message: Moot court isn't "usually" appellate.  Moot court teams at nearly every law school compete in trial and appellate competition and can compete in specialized mediation, international arbitration and brief-writing competitions.  This same nonsense claim is made on the "Mock Trial" page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.232.140 (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad, unverified info

message: For the discussion on the merger with Mock Trial (proposed September 2007) see further down this page.
I am proposing this page be merged with Moot (legal training). They cover (essentially) the same topic. -- Gnetwerker 18:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I found afterwards that there is a Moot court article, so a Request to Merge would be sensible.  I noticed that in the UK and AU/NZ, they just say "a moot" in the context of legal training, but in the US, they say "Moot court".  Support. --Concrete Cowboy 13:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with [[Moot (legal training)]]

message: copy of discussion on user talk pages that really belongs here.  I deleted external links that seemed to me to be spamvertising. --John Maynard Friedman 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that I have applied the policy on "advertising links" inappropriately to the article Moot court, please contact an Administrator.  See Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. I'm happy to be over-ruled if I'm wrong. --John Maynard Friedman 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think you'll like my "edit" of the "moot court" article.  I have deleted any reference under "See Also" to articles that provide information on moot court competitions (or "alumni associations" thereof, whatever those are) on the grounds that moot court competitions are nearly always fee-generating, which means that correspondent articles will probably be viewed by "wikipedia" as advertising (as I've been made to understand wikipedia's meaning of the term).  If you decide to reinstate these references, I hope you'll give second thought to my references and articles regarding BestMootCourtPrograms.com, which is a notable "advertiser" in the same realm as the competitions I deleted today.  To the extent that it is within my power, I'm not going to allow deletion of BestMootCourtPrograms.com on grounds that implicate links you're leaving undisturbed (links I've deleted today).  Further, to the extent that I can, I will maintain consistency in the "standards" policing the "moot court" article, so that wikipedia's audience will not have to view the "moot court" world through a Eurocentric lens -- a lens that should become apparent to anyone tracking your edits of the "moot court" article.Jimdugan 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, I don't make the policy so it's not me you have to convince.  Please ask for Adminstrator attention. --John Maynard Friedman 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've invited help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Article Moot court and user talk discussion --John Maynard Friedman 12:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are no external links to European programmes.  The only European references are to topics that have articles.  I guess you could try to create an article for BestMootPrograms but it has to pass WP:Notable to stand. --John Maynard Friedman 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can substantiate that, then certainly mount a challenge on their talk pages.  You can also use the WP:Notable and WP:Articles for deletion procedure to argue that they are invalid or biased and should be deleted.  Or more simply, you can edit them with criticisms provided you cite a credible external source as making that criticism.  (Editors aren't allowed to have their own opinions - see WP:NOR). --John Maynard Friedman 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be used to link only to substantial sources of more detailed information, such as government resources or standards bodies.  (I'm sure you will find examples where that rule is ignored!) Linking to commercial sources is frowned upon unless they notable in their own right - the WSJ, NASDAQ, etc.  Maybe in time your site will become an established resource and deserve its own article - but it has to happen in that order, not the other way round.  That is what we mean by "spamvertising" - trying to gain business through a Wikipedia mention. Incidentally, you get absolutely zero citation value in Google etc from a reference in Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: thanks jmf Of course, relative to anything else in the moot court world, bmcp.com is notable.  However, I'll back out of this discussion, acknowledging that I should have some press clippings in my pocket before I defend bmcp.com's notability to third parties.  I've learned a lot through my discussion with you, and I sincerely thank you for your time.Jimdugan 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links validity

message: I sincerely don't know how the "moot court" article can be considered complete without mention of the first and only ranking to evaluate American moot court programs - bestmootcourtprograms.com.  Pre-law students are nuts about rankings.  Accordingly, law schools are nuts about their rankings.  Two law schools have already touted their rank at bestmootcourtprograms.com.  It was cited as the authority in a wikipedia footnote (by someone other than the administrator of bestmootcourtprograms.com).  Before the BMCP ranking, law schools would say they were the best at moot court.  Such a claim was never controverted because no one had any profit incentive to collect and add-up the finishes across large moot court competitions.  There remains no profit incentive.  But BMCP does it anyway.  BMCP has yet to receive a penny in compensation.  Please contact TheRanker@BestMootCourtPrograms.com if you need to verify the previous sentence.  BestMootCourtPrograms.com is not an advertiser in the traditional sense of the word - it has received no remuneration.  Additionally, it is the ranking that American moot court programs are scrambling to game and win.  Soon, American moot court programs will stop sending their teams to any competition with 23 or less teams, because the ranking only incorporates results from competitions with 24 or more teams.  This is a change-the-game type of "advertiser."  Isn't wikipedia in the business of letting the world know how the game has changed? I hope so.  I love learning from wikipedia. Jimdugan 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that I have applied the policy on "advertising links" inappropriately to the article Moot court, please contact an Administrator.  See Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. I'm happy to be over-ruled if I'm wrong. --John Maynard Friedman 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think you'll like my "edit" of the "moot court" article.  I have deleted any reference under "See Also" to articles that provide information on moot court competitions (or "alumni associations" thereof, whatever those are) on the grounds that moot court competitions are nearly always fee-generating, which means that correspondent articles will probably be viewed by "wikipedia" as advertising (as I've been made to understand wikipedia's meaning of the term).  If you decide to reinstate these references, I hope you'll give second thought to my references and articles regarding BestMootCourtPrograms.com, which is a notable "advertiser" in the same realm as the competitions I deleted today.  To the extent that it is within my power, I'm not going to allow deletion of BestMootCourtPrograms.com on grounds that implicate links you're leaving undisturbed (links I've deleted today).  Further, to the extent that I can, I will maintain consistency in the "standards" policing the "moot court" article, so that wikipedia's audience will not have to view the "moot court" world through a Eurocentric lens -- a lens that should become apparent to anyone tracking your edits of the "moot court" article.Jimdugan 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, I don't make the policy so it's not me you have to convince.  Please ask for Adminstrator attention. --John Maynard Friedman 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've invited help at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Article Moot court and user talk discussion --John Maynard Friedman 12:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are no external links to European programmes.  The only European references are to topics that have articles.  I guess you could try to create an article for BestMootPrograms but it has to pass WP:Notable to stand. --John Maynard Friedman 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can substantiate that, then certainly mount a challenge on their talk pages.  You can also use the WP:Notable and WP:Articles for deletion procedure to argue that they are invalid or biased and should be deleted.  Or more simply, you can edit them with criticisms provided you cite a credible external source as making that criticism.  (Editors aren't allowed to have their own opinions - see WP:NOR). --John Maynard Friedman 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be used to link only to substantial sources of more detailed information, such as government resources or standards bodies.  (I'm sure you will find examples where that rule is ignored!) Linking to commercial sources is frowned upon unless they notable in their own right - the WSJ, NASDAQ, etc.  Maybe in time your site will become an established resource and deserve its own article - but it has to happen in that order, not the other way round.  That is what we mean by "spamvertising" - trying to gain business through a Wikipedia mention. Incidentally, you get absolutely zero citation value in Google etc from a reference in Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: thanks jmf Of course, relative to anything else in the moot court world, bmcp.com is notable.  However, I'll back out of this discussion, acknowledging that I should have some press clippings in my pocket before I defend bmcp.com's notability to third parties.  I've learned a lot through my discussion with you, and I sincerely thank you for your time.Jimdugan 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Moot Court Programs 

message: I have deleted the merger proposal template from the main page as there is an overwhelming view in favour that Moot Court and Mock Trial should remain as separate pages.Shooty668 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of merger-proposal template

message: I have added some additional content regards to the structure of a moot in England and Wales.  I will endeavour to add some content that covers Scotland in the near future, but the Scottish legal system is not my speciality.  Key points of distinction from E&W would be the courts and the order of presentation.
I feel that some of the new content may be of significant relevance to other jurisdictions (particularly the USA) but I am unsure of how moots/moot courts are held, etc. outside of the UK.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooty668 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of further info regards to England and Wales

message: The list has been updated several times to include WTO and FDI winners and runner-ups, but the changes have been discarded for no apparent reason. I would propose they be reintegrated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.6.251 (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of champions and first runner-ups 

message: Quite distinct from the winners table, I thought I would reply to comments about the records subsection that has been deleted here, in the event there is still some dispute about it. 
It looks to me that the records subsection (again, not the winners table) chose a number of records which clearly, but arbitrarily, paint the Singapore Management University in a positive light and at the top of these lists.  The records included: 
*"Most number of international championships in a season"
*"Most number of international championship finals in a season"
*"Teams that have successfully defended a major international championship"
I have several observations about this:
# I see that Manderiko, who takes issue with its removal, has made hundreds of edits to the Singapore Management University School of Law article. With respect, that  raises a question about whether that could have anything to do with his insistence on including such a list here. Is there a conflict to disclose? 
# The peculiarly chosen records in this list were unsourced and at the moment original research. You would have to compare wins across all international competitions across 50+ years. How the chosen records can be verified from that list of records is totally unclear. 
# The choice of what records to include, and how they were measured, is not clear (and appears to be non-NPOV as noted above). For example, why not most number of international championships won? What constitutes a "season"? When does the record begin? What competitions are being compared? Do they include transnational yet regional only competitions? Why is a "season" relevant or significant (this is not tennis). Why is it significant to note teams that have "successfully defended a major international championship"?
# This kind of intricate detail is in any event too obscure, I suggest, to warrant mentioning on this page. Janetcl (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Records' subsection

message: There appears to be no objective criterion on the basis of which Major/grand slam and international competitions are distinguished. The ELSA/Jackson WTO Moot attracts 90-120 universities and is organized by the WTO itself. What pushes it out of the Major/grand slam category?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.194.252.40 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major/grand slam v. international distinction