Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:54, 25 September 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States High‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:USGOV

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

We have a possible sockpuppet inserting grossly incompetent edits

Hmmm. No Misplaced Pages editor is able to competently cite Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines in their very first edits on the encyclopedia. The fact that Russell Savage is citing them in his first few edits is highly suspicious. There are smarter ways to sockpuppet, you know.

Plus the edits are grossly incompetent. If I filed a brief with those errors with any federal court, I'd be fired. Immediately. Obviously they're not written by a lawyer (or one who attended a law school in the top 20).

Major problems include:

• Equating U.S. law to the Constitution with the use of the copula "is", which is plainly ridiculous. The Constitution is merely the tip of the iceberg. Instant C in constitutional law.
• Lack of understanding of the roots of U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution in English common law (which is what my original prose explained). Instant F in constitutional law.
• Lack of understanding of how U.S. federalism works. States are separate sovereigns and are the final word on their state's law under Erie Railroad. C in civil procedure.
• The cite to Constitution.org is improper because the use of that text on that site is a clear copyright violation. American Jurisprudence 2d was published in 1962 and is still protected by copyright (which is protected by the Constitution, BTW). Plus the Constitution.org site appears to have been written by a non-lawyer who has no understanding of constitutional law. I've seen better writing in habeas corpus briefs from prisoners.
• The citation to "16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256" is nonsensical gibberish. A correct citation looks like this: "47 Am. Jur. 2d. Jury § 266 (1995)." First, you're missing periods. Second, "late 2d" is not a valid notation in any major American legal citation system. I can't tell if you're citing sections 177, 256, both, or everything in between. Third, an Am. Jur. cite always mentions the title of the Am. Jur. article being cited and uses the section sign (§). There's no reference to the article being cited so it's impossible to tell which article in volume 16 is being cited. Fourth, no competent lawyer or legal scholar relies upon Am. Jur. 2d as the sole basis for a point of law; it's always cited after citing three or four cases or law review articles on the same point of law. These are the kind of basics everyone learns in law school after their first assignment in Lawyering Skills comes back with red marks all over it despite their earnest best efforts.
• The change of "refuses to enforce" to "refuses to try" makes zero sense. You don't "try" statutes in a court of law, you "try" facts (that is, a trial is the submission of evidence to the finder of fact to determine the facts). You sue to either "enforce" statutes or to have them "overturned." That mistake alone would get you an instant F in civil procedure and Lawyering Skills.
• Deleted the citation to Friedman but failed to transfer the full citation to the next abbreviated citation to Larry Friedman. That's an instant C in basic high school freshman English composition.

Either clean up this crap now, or it's out of here in three days. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no one's defended this garbage. Reverting NOW. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I came here to late, I dont agree on reverting the lead, it feels wrong to begin with the history of english law, since its refered to later in this most excellent article. Im not competent enough, to judge the citings you mentioned, but the current lead is not in accordance with the general Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, so I suggest reverting the lead, to what ever the alleged Sockpuppet suggested. --80.199.63.146 (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article is too good, to be arguing over silly details. Attempting a compromise for the lead...--Erik Ernst (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding sanity to this discussion. The purpose of open editing in this manner is to improve articles, not to find reasons to shut other editors out. --206.176.211.72 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like no one bothered to read my critique above. Besides ad hominem attacks, no one has given me any actual REASONS why that garbage should stay, or located the correct citation (if there is one) for the point for which the nonsensical citation to "16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256" was given. These aren't "silly details," this is the difference between competent and incompetent writing.

For example, equating U.S. law to the Constitution, period, is just plain inaccurate and stupid. Only a ten-year-old child (who hasn't taken high school civics yet) would believe that. I litigate U.S. law every day and I rarely need to cite directly to the Constitution! --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I did read your critique Coolcaesar, I changed the "try to enforce" to your suggestion. I also keept some lines refering to english law. Arguing over the length of a lead is VERY silly, especially when the rest of the article is so well written. The lead now meets the standards, we all want that dont we?--Erik Ernst (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am curious about the term "federal." It does not appear in the Constitution. Where did the Founding Fathers up pick it? Posted 28 August 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinTexasRRTX (talk • contribs) 16:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a prevailing idea at the time. It is not mentioned in the constitution, but evident in the construction. See the "Federalist Papers," which I highly recommend be read. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Article may require protection soon

We have an ongoing problem with several editors, including User:Russell Savage, reinserting POV unsourced original research garbage about stare decisis and judge-made law into the first few paragraphs of the article. Zoticogrillo, myself, and several other decent editors have been countering these bad edits but this is getting irritating. If this nonsense doesn't stop, the article may require full protection soon. I also request any available admin to run the CheckUser tool on User:Russell Savage to ensure no obvious sockpuppeting is going on.

I also note that blogger Zephram Stark has actively promoted vandalism to this article of the type which Russell Savage is engaging in. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just figured out something. I suspect User:Russell Savage is actually a sockpuppet of User:Zephram Stark, a notorious Misplaced Pages vandal who has been banned for extremely inappropriate behavior and sockpuppeting, and has posted a blog entry on how to sockpuppet. See also Stark's section at Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Page 2. I also note that Russell Savage, in this edit, deleted my earlier critique of his conduct. This was a behavior which was singled out as ArbCom's third finding of fact against Zephram Stark in the final decision on the RfA against him. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I figured it out. Russell Savage is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. The exact position articulated in the edits which I have had to revert recently was also articlated by Stark in this edit and this edit back in 2005. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks are uncalled for. Consensus on this article is that the judiciary interprets the law, but can never make or enforce law. This is consistent with cited secondary sources and with related articles on Misplaced Pages. --Russell Savage (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a wholesale edit by editor Russell Savage. Much of the Russell Savage material I reverted appears to have been prohibited original research (OR) and tendentious commentary (involving NPOV concerns). The rule on Verifiability appears to be of concern here too -- for example, in the references to "licensing agreements". Famspear (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, as you probably noticed, I did some research in Google Books and added some more references. I specifically added a reference to A Matter of Interpretation by Antonin Scalia, currently the most vigorous opponent of the concept of a "living Constitution" as well as the controversial concept of the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" (Trop v. Dulles), which he specifically challenges at pages 36-42 of his book. Yet even Scalia concedes up front (pages 3-13) that common law judges make law.

Also, if Russell Savage (or should I say, Zephram Stark) keeps up the sockpuppeting and the tendentious POV/OR edits, we'll have to get an admin to lock down this article soon. I note that Savage has not specifically denied that he is actually Zephram Stark. It's not a personal attack to point out that a user is almost certainly another user who has been banned from Misplaced Pages for extremely bad behavior, including the use of ethnic slurs. Also, as I pointed out in my earlier edits to Savage's talk page (which he deleted), it's extremely rare for a new user with so few edits to be so intimately familiar with WP policies and guidelines. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Russell has just been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Danbur, whose edits also bear a striking resemblance to those of Zephram Stark. But we still need to be vigilant against any new sockpuppets! --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this ignorant bozo Zephram Stark has just declared war on this article and on Misplaced Pages at this blog post, in which he actively urges vandalism of this article. I'm posting a notice to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) so any available admin can impose protection on this article. Amusingly, Stark was stupid enough to admit in his blog post that he vandalized Judiciary (through sockpuppet User:Gorillasapiens back in June), which I just caught and fixed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I vote that protection is now appropriate. The reasons I see for this are: the edits have become increasingly aggressive with POV-pushing, many edits have removed proper citations, and the various editors have been doing so without any engagement on the discussion page. However, citations on this topic (case law and judicial powers) should be inserted in order to lock out this edit warring for good. Zoticogrillo (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

no practical section

I saw this article referred to in a complaint board, not sure which one (ANI?)

There is no section on practical matters, such as in the USA, the loser pays the lawyers only in the national court system but this is often waived. There is no mention about the litigenous nature of US society either. Or the futility of being your own lawyer unless you want to lose.

There is also no information about regulations. If you break a regulation, you can pay a huge fine, sometimes enough to bankrupt you. Where do regulations fit in. Are they laws?

Does these practical matters have a place in this article or is it just a stuffy recital of academic information? Although ownership of articles is discouraged, it does happen. Who is the owner here? If you, please answer. I am curious and do not advocate one answer or another. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Interpretations of the law

I have reverted the lead and some quotes, that some people keep removing for some reason. I suggest we make a section called Interpretations of the law, and then present the various POVs there, rather than destrying this fine article. --Erik Ernst (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Read my critique above, starting from the words "Major problems include." The edits you reverted contained all the problems which I had criticized. Please keep in mind that legal citations have to be precise and the ones you reinserted were not (in fact, it was practically impossible to determine what the hell was being cited). Law students regularly flunk out of law school and lawyers lose cases all the time due to their inability to grasp the basic rules of legal citation, because then no one can figure out what they are citing, which severely detracts from the persuasive power of what they are saying (it kills their credibility). And the edits are poorly written and are out of compliance with the Manual of Style. Only amateurs and little children dump laundry lists of random quotes like that, with no attempt at linking. (The concept of "verbal diarrhea" comes to mind.) Mature, competent professional writers link and weave quotes together into a coherent narrative.

Also, there are major original research issues, starting with the laughable proposition that Article One of the Constitution expresses the intent of the Founders to abrogate judge-made common law, a crackpot concept which is not expressed anywhere on the face of that portion of the Constitution, and to which no intelligent scholar of any political persuasion subscribes. That proposition is non-neutral original research for which no one has provided a source to any verifiable reliable source (because none exists).

Keep in mind, Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original research, adheres to a neutral point of view, and must be sourced to verifiable reliable sources. See WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. As you may or may not be aware, User:Zephram Stark was ejected from the project for his refusal to adhere to these policies, which are non-negotiable (I sincerely hope you are not one of his sockpuppets or allies). Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, and ArbCom have steadfastly refused to modify those core policies and regularly ban editors who cannot or will not comply with them.

Plus, the proposition is simply wrong. I recently added a citation into the article to a book by Justice Antonin Scalia (an ultraconservative and the most ferocious contemporary opponent of the "living Constitution") in which he concedes that common law judges make law! --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class law articles
• High-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles