Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:47, 7 November 2006

Latest revision as of 01:21, 20 August 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header|shortcut=WT:SCOTUS}}

{{WP_SCOTUS|class=NA}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|1=

{{WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases}}

{{archive box|

{{WikiProject United States}}

#[[/Archive1|14 October 2004 – 27 May 2006]]

{{WikiProject Law}}

#[[/Archive2|18 May 2006 – 17 September, 2006]]

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{Archive}}

|maxarchivesize = 70K

|counter = 15

|minthreadsleft = 4

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(365d)

|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}

== Cases lacking articles ==

Hello, I am new to this Wikiproject; does it have a designated list/area for cases that lack an article? The closest I could find was "articles for creation" under "article alerts", but that seems to be for drafts submitted for creation/review. If there is not, I think it would be useful to create one, so people wishing to create case articles can organize their efforts and easily find cases in need of one. Thank you, and please direct me to the proper ___location if this question is misplaced. [[User:Mason7512|Mason7512]] ([[User talk:Mason7512|talk]]) 19:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

== Four more articles that need work ==

:I'm not sure if one exists, but if one is created, then I think it should be carefully constructed to ensure that each missing case is actually notable. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 19:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{Reply|Mason7512}} I have been making a lot of missing case articles lately. I have just been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lethargilistic/sandbox&oldid=1254469622 using the volumes pages] like [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 586]], creating the articles with {{Tl|SCOTUS-case}} and {{Tl|SCOTUS-case-talk}}. For volume 552 and later, you can pretty reliably use SCOTUSblog as a basis for a holding summary, or preferably just quote the opinion's syllabus and include {{Tl|USGovernment-courts}}. I take the view that [[WP:SCOTUS/ACAN|all of them with an opinion are notable]] in the sense that ''some kind'' of reliable secondary source describes every single one of them, although for practical reasons I have used redirects for relatively rare edge cases. For example, evenly-split affirmances where the underlying case was not well-known; the case might be notable, but figuring that out would require a lot more research than I am willing to do. See my contributions for examples, I guess. If there's any more interest in centralizing the process, I could export my sandbox shortcuts into a subpage of the WikiProject. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 19:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

''[[United States v. Constantine]]'', ''[[Morissette v. United States]]'', ''[[Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.]]'', and ''[[Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger]]'' all need a good deal of work. If anyone has some time to kill, you might want to have a look at these. --[[User:Eastlaw|Eastlaw]] 04:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

::I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that all Supreme Court cases are notable. Especially with older cases, it can be hard to find effective coverage. For example, I wrote about [[Townsend v. Sain]] (1963), but I think that was pushing the limits of notability. I had to really scour the web and that was the extent of what I could find. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] ^{[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]}[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 22:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'll take a look at <u>Williamson</u> later today. [[User:Peyna|Peyna]] 14:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Per my comment above, I agree. Legal academics nowadays pay attention to almost every SCOTUS case, but that was not always the case. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::::As long as there are potentially 3 reliable sources available upon challenge, subjective impressions about the notability of theoretical articles don't matter. Virtually all SCOTUS opinions can meet that threshold through contemporary news, casebooks, and legal scholarship alone. For instance, Townsend has [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Townsend+v.+Sain%22 over 1000 results on Google Scholar]; the article only needs 3 to exist, if challenged. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

== New PCA? ==

After several months of being the PCA, ''[[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]]'' hasn't seen much more work as of late. The article looks good, so can we pick a new PCA? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:I've closed it.--[[User:Kchase02|Kchase]] [[User_talk:Kchase02|T]] 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for [[Brown v. Board of Education]] ==

== Leser v. Garnett ==

[[Brown v. Board of Education]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brown v. Board of Education/2|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 20:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for [[Berghuis v. Thompkins]] ==

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

[[Berghuis v. Thompkins]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Berghuis v. Thompkins/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for [[J. D. B. v. North Carolina]] ==

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd Abrams and the Pentagon Papers case]] ==

[[J. D. B. v. North Carolina]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/J. D. B. v. North Carolina/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:J.D.B. is more clearly beneath the Good Article criteria than Berghuis was, IMO, so I won't try to help it. But I think I should flag to WP:SCOTUS that the main argument other than citation issues (about which I agree) is that incorporating the actual text of the opinion into the article should count against the articles for the purpose of GA status. I disagree for the reasons expressed in [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Berghuis v. Thompkins/1|the Berghuis discussion]]. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

== Unmarked direct quotations in holdings and questions presented ==

Several articles that focus on the involvement of Abrams in several cases (SCOTUS and otherwise) have been nominated for deletion under the above link. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 04:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ordinarily across Wikipedia, direct quotations are clearly identified with quotation marks, a citation, etc., as guidelines and policies such as [[MOS:QUOTE]] and verifiability suggest. On the other hand, infoboxes of Supreme Court cases routinely contain verbatim quotations of questions presented and holdings, without any explicit indicator. (I myself have done this before.) You might say that direct quotation is implied, but I think ordinary readers have no reason to know or expect this.

==Advice on how to handle articles?==

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

I suggest that these direct quotations be marked with quotes in the ordinary manner. I welcome your comments. [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 22:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[Erie doctrine]] cases ==

:Quoting things is generally required by our PAGs, so go ahead. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

:I am against requiring quotation marks for this. Because the cases and their syllabi are public ___domain material, the person who adds it to the article is not necessarily asserting that the text is a quote at all. They are asserting that it is their preferred version of summarizing the material that does not violate any copyright. The preferred remedy for the [[WP:Plagiarism]] concern (which, to be clear, is not a copyvio concern) is appending {{Tl|USGovernment-courts}} to the article. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::Reproducing quotations from SCOTUS decisions without attribution or quotation marks should not be anyone's {{tq|preferred version of summarizing the material}}. Case decisions should be summarized by citation to [[WP:secondary sources|secondary sources]], given that commentators, attorneys, and courts might have radically different interpretations of them. Case summaries should not be the original research of Wikipedia editors. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::A statement by an editor that happens to match a public ___domain source is the statement of the editor. Whether the contents of that statement are verifiable according to reliable sources is a separate question that has nothing to do with whether the statement appears in quotation marks. I would also add that, in Adumbrativus's case, the holding summary is generally short. As long as the article's sourcing supports the assertion that that was the holding, it is irrelevant whether the wording happens to match what appeared in the Supreme Court Reporter, and the article neither gains nor loses anything just by being different for difference's sake. If a subsequent editor devises a better way to summarize the holding, they are free to change it. The later version can stay if it is an improvement, just like any other edit.

:::Nonetheless, I sense that you are jumping to the more general case of inserting statements that match the Supreme Court opinion in the body of the article as the text of the article rather than a quote. As a formal matter, this is neither a copyvio issue nor a plagiarism issue if the template is used. Therefore, the presence of quotation marks is irrelevant. However, as you have said, it is difficult to imagine that this would happen in a ''developed'' article because the text of the opinion is so subject to debate. But as starter text for an undeveloped article, it is unobjectionable to me. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, someone has taken the liberty of writing articles on three of the more important [[Erie doctrine]] cases: ''[[Guaranty Trust Co. v. York]]'', ''[[Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.]]'', and ''[[Hanna v. Plumer]]''. The articles are accurate in their description of the cases but could use some formatting.{{unsigned|Eastlaw}}

::::My issue is not with plagiarism or copyvio, it's with OR. Whether our article is short or long, people shouldn't be summarizing cases based on their interpretation of their decision. I would object less to using the syllabus in that way. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:I fixed up ''Hanna'' somewhat. [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] 17:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Ah, I see. By "summarizing the material," I was referring to [[WP:OWNWORDS]]. I did not mean an independent summary of the case that would offend NOR. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 00:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:I cleaned up ''Guaranty'' and ''Byrd''. Also as a reminder: voting is open for the next PCA. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

::OK, I'll have a look at what could be the next PCA. Also, sorry for forgetting to sign my comment. --[[User:Eastlaw|Eastlaw]] 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I should have checked the talk page before listing a new PCA. Feel free to revert me, or we can just use one of these for next time.--[[User:Kchase02|Kchase]] [[User_talk:Kchase02|T]] 15:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

: Do you have a specific example? --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 01:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:: See e.g. [[Groff v. DeJoy]] (verbatim question presented from [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/22-00174qp.pdf] and holding taken from part of the syllabus [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf]), [[Glossip v. Oklahoma]] (verbatim question presented from [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/22-07466qp.pdf]), [[Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton]] (verbatim question presented from [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/23-01122qp.pdf]), [[West Virginia v. EPA]] (verbatim holding taken from part of the syllabus [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/597us2r65_5iel.pdf]).{{pb}}I don't think "a statement by an editor that happens to match a public ___domain source", as lethargilistic begins with above, is at all an accurate characterization. It's doesn't just happen to match. And it's not merely from any old public ___domain source – it's from the particular source that is the subject of the article, which (whether short or long) readers ordinarily ought to be alerted to. [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 04:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] It does just happen to match because that is how the public ___domain works. People are free to use public ___domain sources as their own words. If an editor thinks it as an adequate summary, then it's an adequate summary, and that's all we should care about. We don't need to introduce a new rule here that would just add a bunch of quotation marks and no substance to the articles. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 12:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Recognizing that editors' perspectives are shaped by their editing background, I'd like to acknowledge your work in diligently creating [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Lethargilistic many stubs]. Outside of very short articles, what you called the "preferred remedy" of appending [[Template:USGovernment-courts]] is better than nothing, but is inferior for the same reason that [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references|general references]] are inferior to inline citations. When a handful of sentences (out of perhaps hundreds in an article) are copied from a source, it is much less helpful to receive a generalized notice than to clearly see which ones were the needles among the hay. In the context of stubs, I happily recognize that general notices and general references are perfectly effective. I hope you can walk away happy with that too. [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 08:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for the praise, but this does not specifically have to do with my stub project. This has to do with what the public ___domain is. Requiring quotation marks for public ___domain content as a general-purpose rule is antithetical to what it is, and I oppose that.

:::::At the end of the day, the actual standard for what we do to articles is that our edits need to improve articles. Adding quotation marks is not an improvement per se. As I said earlier, I think using the text of the opinion in a developed article body should be reviewed closer due to the interpretational issue, but I don't think that's likely to happen in the first place and I don't think it's a categorical prohibition.

:::::Adding quotation marks to the holding summary specifically definitely isn't an improvement per se because it doesn't even change the content or context. It's just cruft added to what is intended to be a straightforward statement of the holding. If a straightforward statement of the holding happens to match text in the holding or the syllabus, that's fine. Aesthetically, you may prefer to add them, and you may have reasons for preferring it, but that preference is not implied by the rules at all. It is certainly not implied by either the copyvio or plagiarism rules. So, no, I would not support a project of adding them to any article where this might apply and I would remove them from an article I was doing a lot of work on. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 03:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Inserting text from a primary source directly into an article without quotations is definitionally OR. Case summaries (including facts and legal analysis) should be cited to secondary sources (e.g., ''[[Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.]]''), just like we would expect a summary of an historical event and its historiography to be cited to secondary sources. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 04:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Although upon rereading the original question here, I don't think copying something from the syllabus or the main holding from a decision and putting it in the infobox requires quotation marks or direct citation, so long as those things are cited in the body of the article. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 04:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::NOR is a citation policy. We are not discussing citation right now. We are talking about contributed text, which needs to be supported with appropriate sources no matter what it says. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 05:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

== Non-diffusing subcategorization for [[:Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] ==

Someone has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danforth_v._Minnesota&diff=1270078483&oldid=1257831443 suggested changing the categorization of SCOTUS articles] in a way that would affect ''every'' SCOTUS case, so I think the proposal ought to get this project's attention.

== Schlesinger v. Councilman ==

Using ''[[Danforth v. Minnesota]]'' as an example, they want to ''remove'' [[:Category:2008 in United States case law]] and [[:Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] and ''add'' [[:Category:United States Supreme Court cases in 2008]].

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

I have been discussing this with them

== ''Hamdan'' GA nomination ==

[[User_talk:Clovermoss#SCOTUS_case_categories|on their talk page]], and that is where the discussion of the SCOTUS case category ought to be siloed. They have also started a related discussion about the way non-diffusing categories are explained in the categorization guideline at [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization#When to diffuse large categories?]] Cheers. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 23:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== Requested move at [[Talk:Trump v. United States (2024)#Requested move 7 March 2025]] ==

I put ''[[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]]'' up for GA nomination. The reviewer wanted more citations in a few of the justices' opinion sections (see comments on the [[Talk:Hamdan v. Rumsfeld|talk page]]). Any help with cites would be greatly appreciated. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Trump v. United States (2024)#Requested move 7 March 2025]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. [[User:Feeglgeef|Feeglgeef]] ([[User talk:Feeglgeef|talk]]) 19:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

== Categorizing an injunction as a case ==

== External links to texts ==

Hey all. @Voorts categorized the injunction in ''[[W.M.M. v. Trump]]'' as a case before the court. It has not been our practice to so this, and I am concerned that doing so could expand the category to things beyond cases before the court. But Voorts maintains that the consideration and granting of the injunction ''was'' a case before the court, and they present an argument for that on the talk page.

Should we try to create a redirect page for case text and laws like they have for books [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0812966600] and maps [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?params=35_53_58_N_79_02_37_W_type:building] so that people are not required to go to one site for Supreme Court cases and other laws? [[User:Remember|Remember]] 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:I understand what you're suggesting, I'm just not sure there are enough websites to warrant a special page. FindLaw contains quite a large number of cases, but not all. LexisOne contains every case, but it isn't linkable. Justia is becoming better, but currently is not very good at all. Certain high-profile cases have multiple websites devoted to them, but databases that have all of the cases and are free are very, very limited. I wish there were more free databases that contained all the cases and were linkable, but it just isn't so. Thanks. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 03:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't had enough time to respond more robustly to them since raising this concern. I think this is something that would benefit from more than two perspectives anyway, so I'm flagging it here.

== Project directory ==

Please see [[Talk:W.M.M. v. Trump]]. [[User:Lethargilistic|lethargilistic]] ([[User talk:Lethargilistic|talk]]) 20:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The [[WP:COUNCIL|WikiProject Council]] has recently updated the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory]]. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at [[User:B2T2/Portal]], listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding [[:Category:WikiProject assessments|assessment]], [[:Category:WikiProject peer reviews|peer review]], and [[:Category:Wikipedia collaborations|collaboration]] are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. [[User:Badbilltucker2|B2T2]] 19:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Beacon Theaters''[[Berkovitz v. WestoverUnited States]]'' ==

Hot off the presses. Not as a case, since it is from the 80s, but as an article, which I just published to mainspace. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 00:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

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

:I made a few minor edits, including a page move. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:Nice work. Refs 5 and 6 are missing pages. Secondary sources could also be used there instead. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

==Puerto Rico v. Barnstad==

:: It is a bit rough. I felt it had lingered in my drafts for too long, so I decided to go ahead and push it out as is. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 01:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I recently finished the article on this obscure but important case. I would like someone from the proyect to peer-review it.[[User:Coburnpharr04|&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt;]] 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)