Talk:Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

A fact from Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that during the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the judge applied a legal rule that has been been described as a "discredited doctrine"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Wikipedia

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This is not your political blog

The passage about USA Senator Blumenthal was badly formatted, and intended to blow up an exaggeration on his part into a "lie" by omitting details of his exaggeration. Furthermore, the passage mentioned that Blumenthal used the phrase when questioning Judge Brett Kavanaugh while ignoring the multiple provable bald-faced lies told by Judge Kavanaugh--apparently for partisan reasons on the part of the editor. I cut the whole thing as overly partisan and distorted. I didn't try have to find a way to present that digression in a balanced way, because at this time it appears to be merely a bit of current political nonsense and inappropriate here. Ventifax (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the above comment is about 73.227.20.10's edits. I trimmed and wikified it a bit, but the episode seems to contribute very little to the understanding of the subject, except for its curio value that is has been mentioned at all – truly trivial. I don't think the article would lose anything if the sentence were removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]