While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This is my first crack at writing a Wikipedia article from scratch, so I welcome feedback from those more experienced. I do have a legal background (practicing attorney), so hopefully there won't need to be too many changes! this name is also in use16:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback given
This article has two glaring problems, as I see it:
There is no indication that this case is notable. A court case is notable if it is cited as precedent in other cases, or is used as a standard case in case law studies, or has otherwise received significant coverage and analysis.
The analysis in this article appears to be that of the author, rather than that of any reliable third-party source. As such, this constitutes original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia.
As for the first, I can't really speak to notability one way or the other. A request was put on Wikiproject: Law's request page under the "notable court cases" section. I realize that list is editable by anyone, of course.
For the original research question, this too seems like an awfully arbitrary line. Is rephrasing or summarizing per se original research? Do I need to find a news article that says who wrote the decision, when it's in the text of the decision itself? Etc.... this name is also in use21:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your article is simply a summary of the court finding itself, I suppose that's admissible. If there are facts that you have presented that are not found in the court documents (such as the fact of no prior ruling on necessity as a defense for illegal protest per se), these need to be cited. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!21:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge I haven't added anything. The example you mention (no prior ruling on necessity) is something the court specifically says: "While our prior cases consistently have found the elements of the necessity defense lacking in cases involving indirect civil disobedience . . . we have never addressed specifically whether the defense is available in cases of indirect civil disobedience." this name is also in use21:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback, and am still very much trying to find the right voice for this site. As a lawyer, I admit I'm probably used to being listened to by default when it comes to legal issues, which of course isn't necessarily fair or right. But again, thanks! this name is also in use22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)