Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:SCOTUS

The United States Supreme Court Case Article Improvement Project is a project started to improve the quality and uniformity of the Supreme Court case articles on Wikipedia. Please see the introduction below. Most of our work centers on the to-do list, below.

Contents

[edit] Project Collaboration Article

Periodically, Project members come together and choose a Project Collaboration Article to give us all a focus. The goal of this PCA is to improve a Supreme Court decision article to the standard of featured article. Nominations for the next PCA may be submitted at any time. The next PCA is decided by majority vote whenever the previous PCA is completed.

The current PCA is: (vacant)

[edit] To-do list

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases: edit · history · watch · refresh

Please help keep this list up-to-date by adding, moving, and removing items as appropriate!

Requested review:

Assessment:

Infobox issues:

Need work:

Need to be started:

[edit] Introduction

The idea for this project came while adding "The Bench" section to a number of the articles. It was noticed that there is a large lack of uniformity among the articles as to how certain things are written or formatted. Also, the outline (when there was an outline at all) seemed to change often. The readers would benefit from a more uniform outline as to how the articles are written.

A later part of the project is to put complete information in every section of each article and check each article for grammar and formatting. The last part of the main project will be to assure there are no "red links" left. Since new mentions to articles and stubs are added all the time, this will surely be an ongoing project. The goal is to have anyone who contributes an article regarding a Supreme Court case follow the formats laid out by this project and if they are not followed, to have someone helping with the project correct any problems in a timely manner.

Wikipedia is an amazing project. In order to further its greatness, this sub-project will improve quality in this particular area so that any reader who wants to learn about the Supreme Court cases can navigate and read them more easily and also have supporting information. Wikipedia is knowledge. Knowledge is power.

[edit] Project

Since this project is obviously a large task, it is not likely to be completed quickly or easily and as stated above, it will be ongoing. Due to the project's size, the main project is currently being done is waves. The main source used to find the articles involved is the List of United States Supreme Court cases. This list is used and dealt with by the project.

[edit] Phases

The phases or "waves" of the project are easier to accomplish in a certain order, but there are no set rules; any Wikipedian can work on any phase at any time.

  • Infoboxes All Supreme Court cases should have infoboxes created using this template, with instructions here. This infobox template is included in the template for creating a new article see Starting a new case article, below.
    • Infoboxes effectively replace a defunct "The bench" section. (Example here.)
    • Previously, infoboxes were substituted, like this one, but the appearance is identical and so changing old templates is a very low priority.
    • A general guide to creating infoboxes for cases is here.
  • Case citations: The object of the phase is to add, verify and/or format case citations.
Proper format- ''[[Name v. Name]]'', VVV U.S. PPP ([[year]]) See case citation for further help.
  1. Add the proper case citation to every reference within each article.
  2. Add the proper case citation to every case on List of United States Supreme Court cases.
  • Avoid redirects: The main object of this phase is to change every instance of Supreme Court wikilinks to read United States Supreme Court, but be directed to Supreme Court of the United States, which is the actual article.
Proper format- [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]
This should also be done to every wikilink involved. Other examples are the names of the Justices.
To simplify the process, you can use the SCOTUS link or scotus link template like so: {{scotus link}}. This expands to United States Supreme Court.
  • External link to text: Every article should have an external link section with at least one link to the full text of the decision. The easiest and probably most reliable place to link to is FindLaw.com. Opinions can be found by searching at http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html. A link to FindLaw, Justia, or WikiSource can be created by entering {{ussc|VVV|PPP|year}} (but make sure to check the result to make sure the link functions—URLs for recent cases may have to be added manually instead).
  • Outline: The desired outline for every article is shown below. This phase is simply to add the outline. Every part does not have to be filled in, so you do not have to be able to read the opinion or know everything about the case. This phase has several parts (being the different sections) and is fully described below.
  • Categorize: Every article should be put into the category of United States Supreme Court cases, but also can be put into proper categories regarding the type of case law.
Example: Category:United States copyright case law
  • Copyedit: Make sure everything that should be linked is linked. Proofread for grammar, style, etc.
  • Fact-check: (For those who qualify only.) Read and checked for accuracy by a legal scholar or knowledgeable person in the area of law.

[edit] Guidelines and article outline

The following is the current desired outline for Supreme Court case articles. It contains all the necessary information and, if followed, will give some structure to the articles. This outline is not set in stone. This project is a living project and any element of the project or the outline can and will be adjusted upon reasonable debate.

[edit] Suggested article outline

  1. Infobox - As described above, every case should have an infobox.
  2. Introduction - The introduction should always contain the case name (bold AND italics) with the citation and a brief case description (one or two lines is sufficient; simply stating that it was a Supreme Court case and what it had to do with, and why it was important).
  3. Prior history - The first header should be "Prior history." This section should contain information on the case's prior history, its history in lower courts, as well as any precedents that the case references. Often times there are one or two precedents used by the Justices as main precedent to either uphold or overturn. These precedents should be mentioned and linked in this section.
  4. Case - This section is obviously the heart of the article. It should contain a summary of the case as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Also, any excerpts from the decision or dissenting opinions should be put in this section.
  5. Effects of the decision - This section should contain information about the effects the decision had on the relevant law. This would include effects the case had on precedents involved in the consideration of the decision as well as effects on the regular business of the American people. The basis of this section is to say in plain English what effect the case had on the law (e.g., Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in all 50 states).
  6. Subsequent history - This section should contain any events that occurred after the decision. Such events would include what happened after a case was remanded to a lower court, "Nixon turned over his tapes and resigned", etc. Also included in this section would be any information on cases that have since been decided using this case as precedent or cases that have since clarified, nullified or reversed the current decision.
  7. External links - Every article should have a section for "external links" ("external" capitalized, "links" lowercase). Every external link section should include a link to the complete text of the decision that will likely be there for some time to come, preferably with both majority and minority opinions (Good sources are Oyez, LII and FindLaw). The formatting for a FindLaw opinion is {{ussc|VVV|PPP|year}} (but make sure to check the result to make sure the link functions—URLs for recent cases may have to be added manually instead). Any other interesting external links can be added, as well.
  8. Additional sections - Many articles also contain Notes or References sections as necessary.
  9. Categories - Every article should be in the Category:United States Supreme Court cases category. The goal is to place each article in its appropriate case law category as well, but at the very least, it should be in the main category so it can be shown. Category:United States case law shows most relevant sub-categories of case law, including case law relevant to a certain amendment(s) of the Constitution.

[edit] Alternative outline

As appropriate, an alternative outline can be used for the bulk of the article. The infobox and introduction remain the same, as do external links, etc.

  1. Background of the case - Subheaders will vary based on relevant substantive background, but the following are included as examples:
    1. Underlying factual pattern This section should just describe what the Court argued, not rebut it; counterarguments by the dissent should be described in the dissent, though mentioned here if the majority's argument expressly replies to the dissent.
    2. Trial court proceedings and decision This includes any key proceedings and findings of fact at the trial level, as well as the court's decision and rationale.
    3. Court of Appeals decision Similarly, this section includes the decision and rationale of the court of appeals.
  2. Court's decision - This section contains the court's decision and its reasoning. If it takes a while to explain how the justices voted, then it might be appropriate to have a subheader for the majority and other opinions following the explanative paragraph.
    1. Carswell's majority opinion This section should just describe what the Court argued, not rebut it; counterarguments by the dissent should be described in the dissent, though mentioned here if the majority's argument expressly replies to the dissent.
    2. Friday's concurring opinion - as applicable
    3. Lillie's dissenting opinion - as applicable
  3. Critical response - This section can include media commentary and law review/scholarly criticism; may also include criticism expressed by other judges on other courts.
  4. Subsequent developments - This can include developments in the case on remand from the Court, other factual changes that are relevant or consequent to the decision, or subsequent relevant case law. It can additionally or alternatively (as a subheader or header) contain information about subsequent jurisprudence; see end of United States v. O'Brien for a good example.

[edit] Starting a new case article

You can start a new case article using the following process:

  1. Subst template Begin each page with the following template based on whether the case has a Volume and Page number in the Court Reporter:
    1. Recently-decided cases: {{subst:SCOTUS-recentcase|Name v. Name|##-####|year|holding}}
      • Example: {{subst:SCOTUS-recentcase|John Doe v. Jane Doe|05-0534|2006|that John Doe's constitutional rights were...}}
    2. Older cases: {{subst:SCOTUS-case|Name v. Name|VVV|PPP|year|holding}}
      • Example: {{subst:SCOTUS-case|Roe v. Wade|410|113|1973|that the Constitution's right to privacy extends to abortion}})
    3. Then save the page. This will place the case in two relevant categories and produce this.
  2. Infobox Then add information to the Infobox which has been added to the article. See {{Infobox SCOTUS case}} and instructions here.
  3. Write the article! Keeping in mind the outline above, read the decision and whatever other information you can find and write the meat of the article itself.
  4. List and categorize it Add the new article to the appropriate list and categories for cases as explained above.
  5. Create redirects If a case name can be spelled out in different ways, it is useful to redirect these variations to the main article to facilitate searches for the article and prevent accidental duplications. For example, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation is redirected from:
    • National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel
    • National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company
    • National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Co.
    • National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp.
    • NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
    • NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel
    • NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co.
    • NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
    • The case is also redirected from two variations of its U.S. reports citation - "301 U.S. 1" and "301 US 1".
  6. Article Assessment On the article's discussion page, insert the template {{WP_SCOTUS}}. You may review the article yourself or ask others here to review it for you. Perhaps add it to the to-do list. Metadatatest.js is a script that can assist you in assessing articles.

[edit] Examples of well-written articles

Though none of the cases below follow suggested outline particularly well, they are all featured or have been featured:

[edit] Resources

[edit] Lists

[edit] Categories

[edit] Outside documents

  • Findlaw.com: A great resource to use when researching information on a particular case.
  • LII: Cornell's Legal Information Institute – another good source for opinions.
  • Oyez.com: An excellent place for documents – even has audio files for the arguments of more recent decisions

[edit] List of templates and info boxes

  • New articles, recent cases: substitute: {{SCOTUS-recentcase}} with parameters: {{SCOTUS-recentcase|Name v. Name|##-####|year|holding}}
    • Example: {{subst:SCOTUS-recentcase|John Doe v. Jane Doe|05-0534|2006|that John Doe's constitutional rights were...}}
  • New articles, older cases, substitute: {{SCOTUS-case}} with parameters: {{SCOTUS-case|Name v. Name|VVV|PPP|year|holding}}
    • Example: {{subst:SCOTUS-case|Roe v. Wade|410|113|1973|that the Constitution's right to privacy extends to abortion}}

[edit] Wikipedians involved

Any Wikipedian interested in helping with the project should feel free to add their name here. We also have a userbox: {{User WikiProject SCOTUS}}.

User Comment
Skyler1534 Project founder, but now inactive
Jacob1207 Formatting; Grammar and Style; Content
PedanticallySpeaking None.
Neutrality Copyediting; fact-checking; grammar; wikistyle
Postdlf Case lists by term and by justice, new case articles, legal analysis, infobox information
--Aude Adding and copyedit new cases, consistent with the guidelines; fact-checking
BD2412 continuing to add notable old cases
Wikiacc (talk) None.
zenohockey Copyediting, light fact-checking, (when I find time) working on infoboxes (or whatever they're called)
Assawyer general editing, fixing infoboxes, etc.
Eastlaw currently adding articles on notable older cases, also doing some general editing
Chaser a bit of everything, lists!
Edward Lalone None.
Jhawk1024 Adding new cases and expanding current ones
Ryan Luck None.
MZMcBride Infoboxes, etc.
Axios023 i know things. please ask.
Jersyko None.
<<Coburn_Pharr>> particularly editing opinions by Justice Breyeror those dealing with Civil Rights.
The Literate Engineer Expanding stubs with background & facts, case histories, concurring & dissenting opinions. And adding a new case here and there.
Hyphen 5 i'm back. let me know what you want me to do!
Ztrawhcs General editing, making articles more accurate, clarifying the holding.
Daniel Case I'm interested in improving our libel-law coverage ... I created Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (the last time SCOTUS has spoken on the subject) and greatly expanded Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., another important decision. I'd like to do some of the other ones .. Rosenbloom, Betts, Walker et al. I've also taken a detour to improve Jacobson v. United States (one of the few times Thomas sides against Scalia). I do a lot of things here but I'll try to help.
Michael Editing cases, technical errors, etc.
Cdogsimmons I'm in. If you need something to do, try improving the Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases.
DavidShankbone check out my Floyd Abrams Project
Gronkmeister Will do anything to help.
Ashley Rovira I want to help by researching cases, perhaps improving articles with finding references and citing works too.
Coemgenus. None.I wrote articles on the cases last term for which Alito wrote the court's opinion. I'm interesting in adding more, as time permits.
JCO312 I did some work on Roper v. Simmons and am happy to do more.
Wooyi I am interested in Fourteenth Amendment and states' rights cases and I will do my best to improve their quality.
Lord Metroid None.
Politics rule I took a trip to the Supreme Court, and fell in love with it!
davidwr wikilink fixups and other minor or mechanical editing
Son (formerly Myselfalso) will help where possible
Kyle Goetz hopes to contribute positively.
Remember I may not have much time to help out but I will try to assist when I can.
Scourt214 None.
Chengwes Adding new cases.
Kiwidude None.
Richard Working on cases involving the First Amendment and cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses
fashnable1 I may not have much time to help out and my coding is weak but I will try to assist when I can.
Echuck215 Will copy edit, and perhaps expand articles needing attention.
Dreadstar Periodically create new articles.
Onefinalstep Create new articles
Jim Simmons Historical perspective, starting with 1 US 1 Non SCOTUS decisions. Learning the coding.
Rsradford I can help with property rights and environmental cases.
Bart1cus I am currently taking a Business Law class and there are several cases we have to know that are not currently on Wikipedia. I plan to help develop those cases as well as lend a hand whenever/wherever I can.
DizFreak Learning coding then working on copy editing and creating stubs on SCOTUS decisions.
JeanLatore Cannabis-smoking autistic hedonist w/ concentration on writing new articles.


[edit] Project accomplishments

The following is a list of accomplishments that are direct results of this project:

[edit] Recognized content

U.S. Supreme Court
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1
Good article GA 1 6 7
B 7 9 6 3 200 225
Start 1 10 15 23 658 707
Stub 1 4 17 3 346 371
Assessed 11 23 38 29 1210 1311
Unassessed 2 613 615
Total 11 23 40 29 1823 1926

[edit] Featured articles

[edit] Good articles

[edit] DYKs (Did You Know)s

The following articles were featured as part of Wikipedia's Did you know? program.

[edit] Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team release version selections

[edit] Formerly recognized content

[edit] Former featured articles

[edit] Former good articles

[edit] Comments

Any comments regarding the project should be directed to the talk page. Wikipedians interested in helping with the project can add their names to the list of those involved.