FactOrOpinion (talk | contribs) →Background section added: new section |
David Tornheim (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
===Sources from the [[Michael Flynn]] and [[Emmet G. Sullivan]] articles=== |
===Sources from the [[Michael Flynn]] and [[Emmet G. Sullivan]] articles=== |
||
Sources added with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:United_States_v._Flynn&type=revision&diff=965222241&oldid=965090489&diffmode=source this edit]: |
Sources added with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:United_States_v._Flynn&type=revision&diff=965222241&oldid=965090489&diffmode=source this edit]: |
||
* {{cite court |litigants= United States v. Flynn |vol=411 |reporter=F.Supp. 3d |opinion=15 |court=D.D.C |date=Dec 16, 2019 |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-flynn-64 |access-date=June 29, 2020 |quote=}} |
* {{cite court |litigants= United States v. Flynn |vol=411 |reporter=F.Supp. 3d |opinion=15 |court=D.D.C |date=Dec 16, 2019 |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-flynn-64 |access-date=June 29, 2020 |quote=}} <u>[Note: This source was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:United_States_v._Flynn&oldid=965090489 added] by {{u|JapanOfGreenGables}}]</u><small>[revised 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)]</small> |
||
* {{cite news| last1 = Herb| first1 = Jeremy| last2 = Polantz| first2 = Katelyn| last3 = Perez| first3 = Evan| last4 = Cohen| first4 = Marshall| title = Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI, is cooperating with Mueller| work = CNN| accessdate = February 18, 2019| date = December 1, 2017| url = https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-charged/index.html}} |
* {{cite news| last1 = Herb| first1 = Jeremy| last2 = Polantz| first2 = Katelyn| last3 = Perez| first3 = Evan| last4 = Cohen| first4 = Marshall| title = Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI, is cooperating with Mueller| work = CNN| accessdate = February 18, 2019| date = December 1, 2017| url = https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/01/politics/michael-flynn-charged/index.html}} |
||
* {{cite news|last1=Sullivan|first1=Eileen|author-link1=Eileen Sullivan|last2=Goldman|first2=Adam|author-link2=Adam Goldman|last3=Shear|first3=Michael D.|title=Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html|accessdate=December 1, 2017|agency=[[The New York Times]]|date=December 1, 2017}} |
* {{cite news|last1=Sullivan|first1=Eileen|author-link1=Eileen Sullivan|last2=Goldman|first2=Adam|author-link2=Adam Goldman|last3=Shear|first3=Michael D.|title=Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I.|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/michael-flynn-guilty-russia-investigation.html|accessdate=December 1, 2017|agency=[[The New York Times]]|date=December 1, 2017}} |
||
Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
::::{{u|FactOrOpinion}} said {{tq|if citations from this list that have been put in a category should be deleted here}}. I agree with {{u|JapanOfGreenGables}} that is it is better to leave them, unless they are clearly irrelevant. If one is completely irrelevant or determined to be bad [[WP:RS]], I would use the <s>strikethrough</s>, so editors know you rejected it. What you can do instead--to keep track of what is and is not used--is add notes after an entry indicating whether they have been used or not. I believe I suggested somewhere creating a table where it is easier to organize the information and add notes. I have no objection to adding new entries to the list. Do you want help with creating such a table?--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
::::{{u|FactOrOpinion}} said {{tq|if citations from this list that have been put in a category should be deleted here}}. I agree with {{u|JapanOfGreenGables}} that is it is better to leave them, unless they are clearly irrelevant. If one is completely irrelevant or determined to be bad [[WP:RS]], I would use the <s>strikethrough</s>, so editors know you rejected it. What you can do instead--to keep track of what is and is not used--is add notes after an entry indicating whether they have been used or not. I believe I suggested somewhere creating a table where it is easier to organize the information and add notes. I have no objection to adding new entries to the list. Do you want help with creating such a table?--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{ping|David Tornheim}} OK. I did look at the table you referred to on the Gideon page, and a table seems quite flexible. For example, we wouldn't have to have the legal / journalism / ... categories here; there could just be a column for the type of citation, and then people could sort on that column if they wanted. I haven't ever created a WP table, but am open to / interested in learning, though I'm also a bit hesitant to spend a lot of time working on the Talk page rather than moving more of the text from the Flynn page to the draft page and working on getting a good draft. -- [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
:::::{{ping|David Tornheim}} OK. I did look at the table you referred to on the Gideon page, and a table seems quite flexible. For example, we wouldn't have to have the legal / journalism / ... categories here; there could just be a column for the type of citation, and then people could sort on that column if they wanted. I haven't ever created a WP table, but am open to / interested in learning, though I'm also a bit hesitant to spend a lot of time working on the Talk page rather than moving more of the text from the Flynn page to the draft page and working on getting a good draft. -- [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{tq|but am open to / interested in learning}} Always good to hear! I wish all new editors felt this way! |
|||
::::::{{tq|I'm also a bit hesitant to spend a lot of time working on the Talk page rather than moving more of the text from the Flynn page to the draft page and working on getting a good draft.}} You have your priorities correct. I will see about helping to create the table. My experience is limited. Often like most thing Wiki, I take an example of the code I like from some other article and copy it and tweak to what I want. I will create a new section and direct you to it. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I would suggest that we keep, because those articles have largely been vetted as being reliable, since their pages are already well established. It might be nice to have. I would also recommend we make an additional section for citations that are currently included in the draft -- I thought there had been one but I guess I was wrong -- and it be updated in the talk section as new things are added. That will also be useful. [[User:JapanOfGreenGables|JapanOfGreenGables]] ([[User talk:JapanOfGreenGables|talk]]) 00:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
::I would suggest that we keep, because those articles have largely been vetted as being reliable, since their pages are already well established. It might be nice to have. I would also recommend we make an additional section for citations that are currently included in the draft -- I thought there had been one but I guess I was wrong -- and it be updated in the talk section as new things are added. That will also be useful. [[User:JapanOfGreenGables|JapanOfGreenGables]] ([[User talk:JapanOfGreenGables|talk]]) 00:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::{{tq|I would suggest that we keep, because those articles have largely been vetted as being reliable, since their pages are already well established.}} Yes. I agree to keep. See above [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:United_States_v._Flynn&type=revision&diff=965687467&oldid=965679792&diffmode=source comment] from me. You can include in a table the extent there seems to be agreement about which is reliable. Please note that if you wish to say something is reliable or not, it should be attributed to you, since there may be disagreement. That's why an example I gave above in a different article, three different editors gave three different lists of the [[WP:RS]] they believed was reliable. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
::::{{tq|I would suggest that we keep, because those articles have largely been vetted as being reliable, since their pages are already well established.}} Yes. I agree to keep. See above [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:United_States_v._Flynn&type=revision&diff=965687467&oldid=965679792&diffmode=source comment] from me. You can include in a table the extent there seems to be agreement about which is reliable. Please note that if you wish to say something is reliable or not, it should be attributed to you, since there may be disagreement. That's why an example I gave above in a different article, three different editors gave three different lists of the [[WP:RS]] they believed was reliable. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
Line 188: | Line 190: | ||
::::::{{tq|He may also have included the first reference by mistake}}. I did notice it is redundant, but I left it for two reasons: (1) to be thorough (2) because it is formatted differently. I'm not sure which is more correctly formatted. I would think the one that I copied from the article was likely added by a more experienced editor and likely is more correct, but I have not checked; It may be the reverse, or both may have problems. I'll leave that for you all to figure out. :) --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
::::::{{tq|He may also have included the first reference by mistake}}. I did notice it is redundant, but I left it for two reasons: (1) to be thorough (2) because it is formatted differently. I'm not sure which is more correctly formatted. I would think the one that I copied from the article was likely added by a more experienced editor and likely is more correct, but I have not checked; It may be the reverse, or both may have problems. I'll leave that for you all to figure out. :) --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{ping|David Tornheim}} Just to clarify, when I said {{tq|He may also have included the first reference by mistake}}, I meant that that specific reference didn't come from the Flynn or Sullivan pages; [[User:JapanOfGreenGables|JapanOfGreenGables]] had introduced it him/herself before I started copying content and references from the Flynn and Sullivan pages. -- [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::{{ping|David Tornheim}} Just to clarify, when I said {{tq|He may also have included the first reference by mistake}}, I meant that that specific reference didn't come from the Flynn or Sullivan pages; [[User:JapanOfGreenGables|JapanOfGreenGables]] had introduced it him/herself before I started copying content and references from the Flynn and Sullivan pages. -- [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::::My bad. I had thought ''all'' the refs had come from those two pages. I will revise accordingly. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|FactOrOpinion}} You're right. No need, and extra work. My thought had been that having everything in oe place. I think what I was envisioning it being possible to keep track of what has been cited there, but we really don't need to beyond the reference page on that section. My thought process was that, while we do need lots of sources from different people that are unbiased, we also want the article to not be "messy" and over-cited. The latter risk is a small risk. So to answer the question your user name asks, it was not a fact. It was an opinion. Also, heads up (and no big deal), but the decision for In Re: Flynn should be cited using <prev>{{cite court}}</prev> . The other court documents you cited as websites look great -- but make sure you include the author of them! So Sullivan for the Case Reassignment, etc. I'll fix them. Noooo big deal. Rule of thumb, if it's actually published in a reporter, then you should cite it as a case, or a decision by an appellate court. I wouldn't be surprised if something else relating to this doesn't spring up in the appeals court, to be honest. [[User:JapanOfGreenGables|JapanOfGreenGables]] ([[User talk:JapanOfGreenGables|talk]]) 09:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|FactOrOpinion}} You're right. No need, and extra work. My thought had been that having everything in oe place. I think what I was envisioning it being possible to keep track of what has been cited there, but we really don't need to beyond the reference page on that section. My thought process was that, while we do need lots of sources from different people that are unbiased, we also want the article to not be "messy" and over-cited. The latter risk is a small risk. So to answer the question your user name asks, it was not a fact. It was an opinion. Also, heads up (and no big deal), but the decision for In Re: Flynn should be cited using <prev>{{cite court}}</prev> . The other court documents you cited as websites look great -- but make sure you include the author of them! So Sullivan for the Case Reassignment, etc. I'll fix them. Noooo big deal. Rule of thumb, if it's actually published in a reporter, then you should cite it as a case, or a decision by an appellate court. I wouldn't be surprised if something else relating to this doesn't spring up in the appeals court, to be honest. [[User:JapanOfGreenGables|JapanOfGreenGables]] ([[User talk:JapanOfGreenGables|talk]]) 09:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|FactOrOpinion}} I'll leave them unedited here for now in case you wanted to practice. |
::::{{ping|FactOrOpinion}} I'll leave them unedited here for now in case you wanted to practice. |
Revision as of 01:24, 3 July 2020
Some background on the creation of this Draft page
I'm going to include a fairly detailed discussion here, in case the overview and/or the links are helpful to some.
On June 11, I posted a question on the Michael Flynn Talk page about whether to create a page for US v Flynn, moving a lot of the contents from the section of Flynn's page that focused on the case, both because the case struck me as meriting a page and because the contentious discussion on the Talk page seemed to focus on the case. There wasn't a great deal of discussion and no consensus after a few days, so I decided to see whether anyone at WikiProject Law had views on it that would help move the discussion forward, and on June 15 I posted a related question on the Talk page there. There was consensus on the WikiProject Law Talk page for creating a US v Flynn page, so I returned to the Flynn Talk page to see if we could reach consensus there as well, and the people who were original hesitant were OK with it. I'm a relatively novice editor and have learned a bunch in this process, including that there was a similar (though more limited) issue with content on Judge Sullivan's page and the Sullivan Talk page, that there are WP:BLP reasons to remove most of the case text from both the Flynn and Sullivan pages, and that WP has a process and some rules for splitting content from an initial page. I saw that if you want to split a section of a page, you're supposed to add a template for that to the source page to promote discussion and list it on another page about proposed article splits. I realized that this process was more than I wanted to take on by myself and asked for help, and eventually Mathglot made the helpful suggestion of using a Draft space. JapanOfGreenGables started the page.
There are a lot of formalities re: splitting, and I'd like to highlight part of what Mathglot told me on the Flynn talk page: "If you're reading up on copying content from a split/merge, you've probably already discovered WP:CWW. The key takeaway from that page, is the attribution statement model that you'll find in tty font right in the middle of the first paragraph. As long as you stuff that statement into the edit summary with every edit involving copying (or closely adapting) text from the source article to the target, you're fine. That's really all you need to know; the rest is nice-to-know."
It's not entirely clear to me what happens when you're copying text from a Source page to a Draft page rather than actually carrying out a split. I don't think the split can occur until the new article is approved, and my sense is that the text should should stay on the Flynn and Sullivan pages until the new article is approved, at which point the text on the Flynn and Sullivan pages would be trimmed and info would be added to US v Flynn that some of the content was "split content from Michael Flynn."
If I understand correctly from what I've read about proposed splits, there are a bunch of things that need to be done: adding notices to the Flynn and WikiProject Law Talk pages closing out the discussions about whether a case page should be created, adding notices to the Flynn and Sullivan Talk pages letting people know about the draft case page and inviting people to work on it and asking people not to delete source text until the draft page is ready to be reviewed, updating the status on the Proposed article splits page. I suspect that I'm forgetting things that I'd thought might be important to include here, but probably best that I post this now and add other things later if/when I remember. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- Re: my comments above about "until the new article is approved," I've since learned that I misinterpreted info that I read, and as long as there are experienced editors involved in creating the draft, it doesn't have to go through an approval process. I've taken care of everything in the last paragraph except posting a note to the Sullivan talk page, and I'll do that soon. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've now added a note to the Sullivan talk page. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Possible structure for the page
Since we're creating a new page, I think it would be helpful to discuss the page structure. If we can arrive at some consensus for that, then we can create placeholder headings on the page, which should help us carry out the work of creating the draft. I'm proposing a structure below but am in no way wedded to it. I recognize that the section names are longer than they should be, but since I'm only proposing headings without any text, I want to at least include enough so that it's clear what the focus of the section would be.
1. Key stages of the case
1.1 Events leading up to Flynn being charged
1.1.1 Russian sanctions, Flynn's communication with the Russian Ambassador and Transition Team, public statements by Pence and Spicer
1.1.2 FBI interview, subsequent related discussion/actions (e.g., Yates with McGahn, Pence checking transcripts), Flynn firing
1.2 Plea bargain
1.3 Initial sentencing hearings
1.4 During delayed sentencing, Flynn changes counsel and approach
1.4.1 Motion for additional Brady material, subsequently denied
1.4.2 Personal declaration, motion to withdraw guilty plea, assertion of ineffective counsel
1.5 Government motion to dismiss and Judge Sullivan's initial response
1.6 Flynn petitions for writ of mandamus and appellate court panel's response
2. Noteworthy legal aspects
2.1 Government's conflicting statements (e.g., about materiality)
2.2 Flynn's conflicting statements and potential for perjury charge
2.3 Interpreting Rule 48(a) for a motion to dismiss in the sentencing phase
2.4 Amici in a criminal case
2.4.1 Assigning an amicus to argue against dismissal
2.4.2 Other amici in both the district and appellate cases
2.5 The writ of mandamus
2.6 Intersection with Bijan Rafiekian trial
3. Partisan debates about the case
3.1 Broader context
3.1.1 Special Counsel's Office investigation (incl. Trump to Comey re: "letting Flynn go")
3.1.2 Allegations of a "Russia(n) collusion hoax"/"Obamagate"
3.1.3Continued public release of related evidence (e.g., Flynn-Kislyak transcripts, meeting memorialized by Rice, House interview transcripts, handwritten notes)
3.2 Competing narratives and allegations specific to the case
3.2.1 Allegations that Flynn was coerced with threats to prosecute his son
3.2.2 The agents' sense of whether Flynn was lying
3.2.3 Allegations of a "perjury trap"
3.2.4 Allegations of Brady material having been withheld
3.2.5 Allegations of Judge Sullivan being biased
3.2.6 Allegations of Attorney General Barr acting to protect President Trump
What do people like/dislike about this, and what alternative do you think would be better? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- JapanOfGreenGables' suggestion, June 29, 2020
Just putting a break in bold so its easier to see where one person ends another begins.
There are some good points here. My concern is that it may deviate from the norms of how to structure a page on a court case. Take Brown v. City of Oneonta, for example. I don't necessarily think this article should look exactly like that one, as this case is more complex, but just to show how other District Court cases look. If we follow that model, it would have a break down like this.
1. Background
2. Investigation
3. Case
- 3.1 'District Court
- 3.2 Appeal (In Re: Flynn)
4. Reaction
It also has subsections for the district court and the appellate court. Therefore, a section could be added on In Re: Flynn there. It may be to soon to tell, but, I would interpret the relevancy requirements of the appellate case if it continues to be relevant. It's a relevant decision now, but, if it's never used as precedent and soon loses its important, I'm not sure it would warrant its own page other than a significant section in this page.
I think this is a good model. Or, a more detailed model could be adopted inspired by Supreme Court cases. My reasoning for this is that this is a complex case that warrants more sections given its connections to the 2016 election and the Mueller probe. I'm using Citizens United v. FEC as an example for this breakdown. It is modified to conform to the case.
1. Case Summary
2. Background
3. In the District Court
4. In the Appellate Court
5. Subsequent Developments
- 5.1 This is anticipating that there will be some implications to the District Court's opinion, and new developments after the District Court's final disposition.
6. Responses
7. Political Impact
- 7.1 Here too I'm anticipating that there will be political implications to the final disposition.
The sub-points are not points that can be added at this time, as the trial hasn't yet concluded. Because it's a bench trial, there will be a judgment from the Court, which generally would warrant a discussion of its reasoning. However, given the appellate decision, it may be short. However, the December ruling on Brady materials and evidence would warrant a discussion of the Court's reasoning. It's detailed enough.
If we were to go with this more detailed breakdown, I think a lot of the points you list under part 1 could go under Background, and legal aspects in part 1 could go under In the District Court or In The Appellate Court. Number 3's points could go under background, subsequent developments, and political impact. As for 2, I'm not sure where those would go. Maybe Noteworthy Legal Aspects would warrant its own section, in which case I would include it after "In the Appellate Court."
That's my two cents — that we follow a model closer to those used in other cases at the district level, and/or of similar notoriety and importance.
JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- @FactOrOpinion and JapanOfGreenGables:: about structure and other things, here are a few tips to consider:
- Don't overthink it; just go ahead and add some content; that, after all, is what will make up the article. If you know some basic top-level sectioning already, great; you can always refine it later.
- Check out other articles in Category:United States Supreme Court cases to see how they do it. That category has lots of sub-categories; you might like to find a subcat containing articles like this one, to use as a model.
- Definitely have a look at the Project page WP:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. You can also ask for help at the Project Talk page (WT:SCOTUS). The best way to do that, is to not post open-ended questions or start long discussions there, but rather start your discussion or question here on this page first (this is the discussion page for the article, and it's where other editors will look for relevant topics), and then, if it looks like you need help about something specific, or just want to know if you're on the right track, write a brief, neutral message--one sentence is good--at the Project talk page WT:SCOTUS, requesting feedback, and providing a link to the relevant discussion here. If the question is more generally about law, and not specific to SCOTUS, then use Wikipedia:WikiProject Law instead (WT:LAW). In both cases, your question may have been answered in the past; find the little "Archives" box, and try a search of the archives, to see what turns up. Project members are happy to give their time to help you, but are not keen on repeating their answer to the same questions that have been answered before.
- If I get some time, I'll add some non-content stuff (top, bottom matter) that will help make your Draft look like an article and help support it, but leaving all the content addition up to you, and other interested editors. Feel free to {{ping}} me if you have general (Wikipedia, non-legal) questions. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here, why not start by structuring like this: WP:SCOTUS/SG? Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- @FactOrOpinion and JapanOfGreenGables: Thanks for moving discussion over here and for copy the content from the article it is being split off from. I agree with Mathglot that the structure of the article should be similar to other similar cases--similar in notability and similar in court level (e.g. federal district court cases, appellate federal).
- I would look at examples from Category:United_States_courts_of_appeals_cases for the format for the appellate case and Category:United_States_district_court_cases for examples of district court cases, and see if you can find a case of similar notability. Perhaps this one will be of use: Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc. as a district court case and avoid examples like MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc. where the text relies on the court submissions rather than what WP:SECONDARY sources say.
- If no one has suggested reading MOS:LEGAL, definitely do that.
- Please keep in mind that our legal articles vary widely in quality. Some are very well-referenced, e.g. Contract; others, have few sources and too much WP:OR, e.g. Comparative_negligence, Question_of_law.
- Some of the text in these articles may have been written by attorneys or even legal experts, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way: We rely on WP:RS. FYI, I have a degree in paralegal and have taken numerous legal research & writing classes. The rules here are different than in your legal classes for writing briefs, where you are just summarizing the WP:PRIMARY source(s). However, I do see a number of cases written up like briefs. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks David Torheim. Maybe it would be good for me to make a subsection on the talk page where we can begin pooling some RS, even if we haven't started writing yet. I will find some RS and do that now. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- @JapanOfGreenGables: Yes. Excellent idea.
- You can find examples of long lists of WP:RS here: Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)/Archive_2#Requested_move_8_May_2020. Multiple editors provided lists of WP:RS for that article that covered a specific aspect of it. One had a snazzy table: To find that table, search for "request update/modification". If you do a table like that, I would put notes about what topics each article covers to save everyone time finding things.
- I would list all the WP:RS already in the article from the "references section". If that seems time-consuming, because of the strange way Wikipedia does reference footnotes, I can help you do it. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks David Torheim. Maybe it would be good for me to make a subsection on the talk page where we can begin pooling some RS, even if we haven't started writing yet. I will find some RS and do that now. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Belated thanks to everyone for their helpful replies. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
A few questions about the Infobox
IANAL and have a few questions:
1. The “date decided” is listed as “Dec. 19, 2019.” I assume it was supposed to be Dec. 16, but why would that be the date the case was decided? It’s the date for a long and significant memorandum opinion (e.g., re: Brady material), but it seems to me that the case itself isn’t yet decided. There’s an order from CADC on the writ, but Sullivan hasn’t dismissed the case, and we don’t know whether Sullivan will appeal the ruling, or if CADC will choose to rehear it sua sponte, or if Sullivan will instead accede to the order. The "date decided" also affects what’s listed as prior and subsequent actions.
2. For the docket, is there any standard re: listing “No. 17-232” vs. “1:17-cr-00232”?
3. Should we note things like “(recused after 1 week)” for Contreras there or only in the body? Ditto re: changes in counsel: Van Grack resigned from the case, Timothy Shea was the one who submitted the Motion to Dismiss but otherwise wasn’t counsel for the case, etc.
4. Should the U.S. be listed as prosecutor rather than plaintiff, since it’s a criminal case? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi! I'll try and clarify things.
- 1. Yes it should be December 16, I must have made a typo. The reason why I put it for date decided is because that was the most recent disposition and was published in the Federal Reporter. Once the final decision is released, it should be changed. But it hasn't yet. Anyways, I will fix this now. But yes all this information should be replaced once the case finishes.
- 2. "1:17-cr-00232" isn't the docket number. That's the case number. ^___^
- 3. This is a good question, and I don't know what the official answer is. I say yes, only in the body. The information I've put in the info box is taken directly from court documents. I haven't found any cases where the info box lists refusals and people leaving the case, but I could be wrong. I checked Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker to see what they did, as Samuel Alito recused himself (he owns stock in Exxon). There's nothing in the info box to indicate this, but it's mentioned in the body of the article. I'm basing my opinion off that. It is, however, an educated guess, coupled with the fact that people like Van Grack are still listed as Counsel, and earlier motions were filed by him.
- 4. Nope. The Special Counsel are not prosecutors, and aren't acting as prosecutors. This is largely a technicality. Under federal law, only the U.S Attorney and Attorney General can prosecute federal crimes. Prosecution of federal crimes isn't in the jurisdiction of a special counsel. They are, however, authorized to bring action on behalf of the government. Special Counsel, representing the United States, submitted a criminal complaint on behalf of the government. Prosecutors, like the U.S Attorneys offices, press charges and are not the complainant, even though in both cases the party is the United States. As a result, they are listed as plaintiffs in all legal documents.
Hope this helps clarify things! JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- JapanOfGreenGables Belated thanks for your answers. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on WikiProject Law
Please note that the creation of this draft comes partly from this discussion at WikiProject Law:
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Does_U.S._v._Flynn_merit_a_page (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources to draw upon
Given the work that lies ahead, and David's comments/advice on avoiding some of the pitfalls case pages sometimes have on Wikipedia, I thought it might be good to make a section where we can begin pooling reliable sources to use. I will suggest that when you add something, provide a short synopsis underneath. That way, as we begin writing, it will be easy to look at this section and use specific sources easily, rather than having to fish through them to find one that helps for a given section. For now, I'm going to break add three sections -- journalism, legal, and academic/scholarly. Feel free to add more.
Journalism
- Gerstein, Josh. "Judge recuses in Michael Flynn case". POLITICO. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
- Goldman, Adam (2020-01-14). "Michael Flynn Moves to Withdraw Guilty Plea in About-Face After Extensive Cooperation". New York Times. Retrieved 2020-06-30.
- New York Times article on Flynn's change of plea.
- Herb, Jeremy; Polantz, Katelyn; Perez, Evan; Cohen, Marshall (December 1, 2017). "Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI, is cooperating with Mueller". CNN. Retrieved February 18, 2019.
- Lynch, Sarah N.; Layne, Nathan (December 8, 2017). "Judge presiding over Michael Flynn criminal case is recused: court". Reuters. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
- Ross, Brian et al. "Flynn has promised special counsel 'full cooperation' in Russia probe: Source", ABC News (December 1, 2017)
- Sullivan, Eileen; Goldman, Adam; Shear, Michael D. (December 1, 2017). "Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I." The New York Times. Retrieved December 1, 2017.
Legal Documents
- U.S. v. Flynn, 441 F. Supp. 3d 15 (D.D.C. 2019).
- District Court opinion by Emett Sullivan denying Flynn's motion to compel government to produce Brady materials and new evidence. (See Brady v. Maryland)
- In Re: Flynn, Slip Opp. (D.C. Circ. 2020).
- Appellate court decision granting Flynn a writ of mandamus in the District Court case.
Legal citations are a bit confusing if you don't know how to read them. See below section for further guidance. Citations should follow MOS:LEGAL, which requires cases be cited according to the Bluebook.
- "U.S. v. Flynn, Transcript of Sentencing Proceedings" (PDF). Just Security. December 18, 2018. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Scholarly Commentary
Sources from the Michael Flynn and Emmet G. Sullivan articles
Sources added with this edit:
- United States v. Flynn, 411 F.Supp. 3d 15 (D.D.C Dec 16, 2019). [Note: This source was added by JapanOfGreenGables][revised 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)]
- Herb, Jeremy; Polantz, Katelyn; Perez, Evan; Cohen, Marshall (December 1, 2017). "Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI, is cooperating with Mueller". CNN. Retrieved February 18, 2019.
- Sullivan, Eileen; Goldman, Adam; Shear, Michael D. (December 1, 2017). "Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I." The New York Times. Retrieved December 1, 2017.
- Ross, Brian et al. "Flynn has promised special counsel 'full cooperation' in Russia probe: Source", ABC News (December 1, 2017).
- "Judge recuses in Michael Flynn case". POLITICO. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
- "Judge presiding over Michael Flynn criminal case is recused: court". Reuters. December 8, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
- "U.S. v. Flynn, Transcript of Sentencing Proceedings" (PDF). Just Security. December 18, 2018. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
... This is not a complete list, but a start. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- David Tornheim, JapanOfGreenGables has now moved the citations in this list to the categories above. I'm wondering if we should keep this section as part of documenting that information was moved here from the Flynn and Sullivan articles, adding new citations to it as they're brought over from those pages, or if citations from this list that have been put in a category should be deleted here (so that it's a section only of yet-to-be-categorized citations from those pages). If we do the latter, and if people want as part of honoring the original sources, we could also add something like "origin-MF:" and "origin-ES" after the bullet for a citation when moving a citation from "yet-to-be-categorized" here into one of the categories above. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- FactOrOpinion said
if citations from this list that have been put in a category should be deleted here
. I agree with JapanOfGreenGables that is it is better to leave them, unless they are clearly irrelevant. If one is completely irrelevant or determined to be bad WP:RS, I would use thestrikethrough, so editors know you rejected it. What you can do instead--to keep track of what is and is not used--is add notes after an entry indicating whether they have been used or not. I believe I suggested somewhere creating a table where it is easier to organize the information and add notes. I have no objection to adding new entries to the list. Do you want help with creating such a table?--David Tornheim (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)- @David Tornheim: OK. I did look at the table you referred to on the Gideon page, and a table seems quite flexible. For example, we wouldn't have to have the legal / journalism / ... categories here; there could just be a column for the type of citation, and then people could sort on that column if they wanted. I haven't ever created a WP table, but am open to / interested in learning, though I'm also a bit hesitant to spend a lot of time working on the Talk page rather than moving more of the text from the Flynn page to the draft page and working on getting a good draft. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
but am open to / interested in learning
Always good to hear! I wish all new editors felt this way!I'm also a bit hesitant to spend a lot of time working on the Talk page rather than moving more of the text from the Flynn page to the draft page and working on getting a good draft.
You have your priorities correct. I will see about helping to create the table. My experience is limited. Often like most thing Wiki, I take an example of the code I like from some other article and copy it and tweak to what I want. I will create a new section and direct you to it. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: OK. I did look at the table you referred to on the Gideon page, and a table seems quite flexible. For example, we wouldn't have to have the legal / journalism / ... categories here; there could just be a column for the type of citation, and then people could sort on that column if they wanted. I haven't ever created a WP table, but am open to / interested in learning, though I'm also a bit hesitant to spend a lot of time working on the Talk page rather than moving more of the text from the Flynn page to the draft page and working on getting a good draft. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- FactOrOpinion said
- I would suggest that we keep, because those articles have largely been vetted as being reliable, since their pages are already well established. It might be nice to have. I would also recommend we make an additional section for citations that are currently included in the draft -- I thought there had been one but I guess I was wrong -- and it be updated in the talk section as new things are added. That will also be useful. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest that we keep, because those articles have largely been vetted as being reliable, since their pages are already well established.
Yes. I agree to keep. See above comment from me. You can include in a table the extent there seems to be agreement about which is reliable. Please note that if you wish to say something is reliable or not, it should be attributed to you, since there may be disagreement. That's why an example I gave above in a different article, three different editors gave three different lists of the WP:RS they believed was reliable. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @JapanOfGreenGables: Of the 18 references on the Draft page now, all but the first three are from the Flynn or Sullivan articles and were added in the edit that David Tornheim referred to (though I think I swapped out a different link for the Motion to Dismiss, and I don't remember why). I think he just didn't copy all of them, and that's what he meant by "This is not a complete list..." He may also have included the first reference by mistake; you had added that one when you first created the draft page, and I don't know if you brought it from the Flynn or Sullivan page. I'll now add the rest of the Flynn & Sullivan refs from the Draft page edit referenced above. I considered inserting them into David's comment, given his reference to a specific edit, but it doesn't feel right for me to add something above his signature without his OK, even though I think it will be easier to keep track of if it's one long list rather than interspersed with comments. That can be fixed later. I'll also note that I didn't attempt to clean up the references when I brought them over. For example, whoever had added the Politico article didn't look up the author, and I didn't attempt to do that when I added text to the overview using that reference. I see that you cleaned them up when you added the references to the categories above on this Talk page, but they still need to be cleaned up on the Draft page. I'm just going to copy them now, and will try to clean them up as I categorize them. If we're keeping all of them here, this could become a very big section, as there are maybe 150 relevant references from the Flynn and Sullivan pages. Does it really make sense to try to copy and categorize all of them on this Talk page? And if so, would the entries here simply be listed in the order that they were added to the Draft page? Also, I don't understand why you want "an additional section for citations that are currently included in the draft." Someone can see that list on the Draft page, why add it here too? It seems like extra work without any clear benefit. What am I missing? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think he just didn't copy all of them, and that's what he meant by "This is not a complete list..."
That's correct. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)He may also have included the first reference by mistake
. I did notice it is redundant, but I left it for two reasons: (1) to be thorough (2) because it is formatted differently. I'm not sure which is more correctly formatted. I would think the one that I copied from the article was likely added by a more experienced editor and likely is more correct, but I have not checked; It may be the reverse, or both may have problems. I'll leave that for you all to figure out. :) --David Tornheim (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)- @David Tornheim: Just to clarify, when I said
He may also have included the first reference by mistake
, I meant that that specific reference didn't come from the Flynn or Sullivan pages; JapanOfGreenGables had introduced it him/herself before I started copying content and references from the Flynn and Sullivan pages. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)- My bad. I had thought all the refs had come from those two pages. I will revise accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: Just to clarify, when I said
- @FactOrOpinion: You're right. No need, and extra work. My thought had been that having everything in oe place. I think what I was envisioning it being possible to keep track of what has been cited there, but we really don't need to beyond the reference page on that section. My thought process was that, while we do need lots of sources from different people that are unbiased, we also want the article to not be "messy" and over-cited. The latter risk is a small risk. So to answer the question your user name asks, it was not a fact. It was an opinion. Also, heads up (and no big deal), but the decision for In Re: Flynn should be cited using <prev>.</prev> . The other court documents you cited as websites look great -- but make sure you include the author of them! So Sullivan for the Case Reassignment, etc. I'll fix them. Noooo big deal. Rule of thumb, if it's actually published in a reporter, then you should cite it as a case, or a decision by an appellate court. I wouldn't be surprised if something else relating to this doesn't spring up in the appeals court, to be honest. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @FactOrOpinion: I'll leave them unedited here for now in case you wanted to practice.
- @JapanOfGreenGables: I do understand the need to include authors, source and retrieval dates, etc., and I always do so when I'm the one adding a reference. But in this case, I was copying references from the Flynn page, whence my comment above that "I didn't attempt to clean up the references when I brought them over." It was simply more work than I was up to to copy/edit text from different parts of the Flynn page for the overview, make sure that I got all of the references associated with that text, and also clean up all of the references introduced by others. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @FactOrOpinion: Depending on the context, sometimes editors don't provide all the citation information, and sometimes just do what is easiest and takes the least space in a discussion. For example, in Articles proposed for Deletion discussions, usually just a url link is given to simplify the discussion. For example, in this discussion, you see links [3],[4],...,[11] where editors are likely suggesting WP:RS to prove notability or dispute whether citations in the article are reliable. Here, where you are working on the article looking for the best WP:RS and trying to avoid redundancy, a full citation is best--if you have the time. Thanks for your efforts to use full corrected citations, when possible. Good instinct! --David Tornheim (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- oh oops! My bad. Sorry to have jumped to conclusions. Mea culpa.JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @JapanOfGreenGables: I do understand the need to include authors, source and retrieval dates, etc., and I always do so when I'm the one adding a reference. But in this case, I was copying references from the Flynn page, whence my comment above that "I didn't attempt to clean up the references when I brought them over." It was simply more work than I was up to to copy/edit text from different parts of the Flynn page for the overview, make sure that I got all of the references associated with that text, and also clean up all of the references introduced by others. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Remaining sources added with this edit:
- Mangan, Kevin Breuninger,Dan (June 12, 2019). "Michael Flynn hires new lawyer, Sidney Powell, who had urged him to withdraw guilty plea in Mueller case". CNBC.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Binnall, Jesse; Powell, Sidney; Hodes, W. (October 24, 2019). "Flynn Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material and To Hold the Prosecutors in Contempt". Court Listener. Retrieved June 15, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - Hsu, Spencer; Leonnig, Carol (December 16, 2019). "Michael Flynn's sentencing set for Jan. 28 after judge rejects his attacks on FBI, Justice Department". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 16, 2019. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- Hsu, Spencer (January 15, 2020). "Michael Flynn moves to withdraw guilty plea, claiming government 'vindictiveness'". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 5, 2020. Retrieved May 5, 2020.
- Shea, Timothy (May 7, 2020). "Government's Motion To Dismiss The Criminal Information Against The Defendant Michael T. Flynn" (PDF). Retrieved June 28, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ".Order". USA Today. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
- Naham, Matt (May 19, 2020). "Michael Flynn Judge Sets Schedule for What's Next. This Is Going to Take a While ..." Law and Crime. Retrieved June 10, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - url=https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e80e0d236405d1c7b8eaec9/t/5ec4222cf1ca5608a0eefecd/1589912108756/Petition+%28filed%29.pdf%7Caccess-date=2020-05-21
- Rao, Neomi (June 24, 2020). "In Re: Michael T. Flynn, On Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus" (PDF). U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Retrieved June 24, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
-- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion: draw on reliable sources from the Michael Flynn and Emmet G. Sullivan articles
The US v Flynn page is being split from a section of the Flynn page, Investigations after leaving the Trump administration, and there's a lot of material about the case there with WP:RS already. I've only brought a bit of it to the Draft so far, focusing on the Overview, as I thought it made more sense to discuss the page structure before copying more from there (and people then helpfully drew my attention to the norms for structuring case pages, which I hadn't known about). There's also some relevant text and references in the National Security Advisor section and a bit on Sullivan's page. If any of you haven't looked at the text and references on those pages/sections already, I encourage you to do so. Is there a straightforward way to copy a bunch of references formatted for WP? When I added them to the draft last night, I was copying one at a time. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Notes On Work Done
- I think it's good we have a running list of citations that are currently cited in the article. We should keep updating it. However, I've also added those citations to their respective categories. Group consciousness (meaning we should go with what we think as a whole rather than what I say), but I would suggest we do that as well. When something new is cited, add it to both the Sources Cited list and also the one it is relevant too (Legal/Journalism/etc.), and maybe still include short synopsis/summary of what it is. I'll work on going through these and doing that now. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Notes On Work To Be Done Pertaining to Citations
- Organize sources cited into other lists.
- Done as of June 30, 2020 JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Add descriptions for sources that are lacking them.
Don't mind me making these subsections. I'm just a stickler for keeping everything organized and visually clear. Sorry I'm spending more time on the talk page than the draft itself. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sources and citation styles for legal documents
There are other documents from the case that people may want to cite (e.g., motions by various parties, exhibits, status reports, transcripts, minute orders). AFAIK, the Court Listener docket pages for the case have all of the public documents: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/ The In re: Michael Flynn documents are listed here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/56207/in-re-michael-flynn/, but aren't available there, and the oral arguments audio is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/70607/in-re-michael-t-flynn/ Is there a specific format for citing specific legal documents other than opinions? FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comment to a new section, just because I know it will likely end up being a lot of discussion on how to cite things properly.
- At any rate, as per MOS:LEGAL, there is. MOS:LEGAL states Bluebook is recommended as the citation style for Articles in American Law. BUT and this is a huge but, this doesn't seem to be the case. The article states that clear language should be used. I've checked some other articles (actually, the page for Ammon Bundy and am trying to find some others to confirm) that have citations to briefs and motions, and they have cited them as websites. This is definitely preferable. As you'll see, a Bluebook citation is far from clear language. That said, I'm including some info about it just to be safe.
- There are pdfs of the Bluebook online, and sometimes if you google Bluebook and the document type, the instructions for citing it will come up on a University library's website — "how to cite criminal complaint in Bluebook," for example. I wish I could give a simple answer to your question, but unfortunately there isn't one.
- If you want, you can flag here whenever you cite a new legal document, FactOrOpinion and either myself or someone else can double check. Or if you're more comfortable, you can say here what needs to be cited and where and either myself or someone else can input the citation.
- Looking at the citation for legal documents might help.
{{cite court |litigants= |vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court= |date= |url= |access-date= |quote=}}
- Here is the one for the most recent decision.
{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Flynn |vol=411 |reporter=F.Sup. 3d |opinion=15 |pinpoint= |court=D.D.C |date=Dec. 16, 2019 |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-flynn-64 |access-date=June 30, 2020 |quote=}}
- Which produces
United States v. Flynn, 411 F.Sup. 3d 15 (D.D.C Dec. 16, 2019).
- Note there is a difference here from Bluebook. Wikipedia's citation style italicizes cases.
- As you can see, I removed pinpoint. Pinpoint is when you are citing something specific like a quote. It appears after the opinion number/first page number. So if a decision has been published in the reporter, it would look something like this. United States v. Flynn, 411 F.Sup. 3d, 15, 16 (D.D.C, Dec 16, 2019). This would be if something is cited on page 16. Documents that aren't published in a reporter might have paragraph numbers. If they do, you cite that instead of the page number and precede the number with the paragraph symbol/pilcrow. So say something is cited in paragraph 3, you'd put ¶3 instead of the page number.
- For documents that aren't in a reporter, like a motion or memorandum, you take vol, reporter, and opinion out and replace it with docket. Docket should be formatted as "No.17-232-EGS." Keep in mind, many documents have this listed as Crim. Action No. But this is actually the docket number. There aren't templates for these, so unfortunately you have to do it by hand. The Docker number should be a hyperlink to the document using <prev>/ Docket Number<prev/> Let's say you're citing something on page 2 of one of Flynn's briefs to support a motion to produce Brady Material and Show Cause. Page number comes after the document title. So the citation looks like this.
- Brief of Def. in Supp. Mot. Compel Prod. of Brady Material and Order to Show Cause at 2, United States v. Flynn No. 17-232-EGS (D.D.C, Aug. 30, 2019)
- The case number is used if there is no docket number. Case numbers are used for filing documents, and doesn't refer to the actual legal proceedings (though they are very similar). So, for example this... https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.1.0_3.pdf
- ...was filed before the case was assigned a docket number, so you put the case number. For the sake of an example, let's say I'm citing a quote on page 2 again.
- Information at 2, United States v. Flynn, No. 1:17-cr-00232-RC (D.D.C, Nov. 30, 2017)
- You may be able to get the gist of it from this. But it's important to note some words are always abbreviated/excluded from the title, as you can see with the brief I used as an example. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- JapanOfGreenGables thanks for your long reply; I hadn't meant to take up so much of your time with my question. I should have reread MOS:LEGAL before asking, though I'm not familiar with the Bluebook and would have needed to read a bunch more to really understand the correct citation styles. Thanks, as well, for your offer of help if I run into problems using the correct citation style. I don't mind your having moved my question to a new section, but have relabelled the header, and I propose that you move your "Legal citations are a bit confusing if you don't know how to read them, so just to give a quick synopsis. ..." paragraph here, replacing it in the previous section with something like "see below for formatting," linking to this section. Or, if you prefer to leave that paragraph there, I'd like to edit my O.P. so that it's clearer that I raised my question in response to your comment about the citation style for opinions. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, FactOrOpinion. Happy to move it, and will now. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- JapanOfGreenGables - I actually meant moving the text that you deleted here [1], which (I think) includes a bit of information (e.g., "the thing after the case name is the reporter citation. ...") that was helpful to me and likely to others who aren't lawyers. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Background section added
I've copied content from the Flynn page that strikes me as background to US v. Flynn. The content came from the sections labelled "2016 U.S. presidential election," "National Security Advisor," and the beginning of "Investigations after leaving the Trump administration" (stopping at the plea bargain section, which is the beginning of the court case). I omitted a bit of text from those sections if the text didn't seem relevant (e.g., about other aspects of the campaign or transition). I haven't copied any of the new references to the talk page yet, I haven't checked the references yet to see if they're complete on the draft page (e.g., not missing authors), and other than omitting some of the text from those sections, I hardly did any editing. I just wasn't up for copying all of it + fixing the references that didn't transfer properly and then also editing on top of that. It's a lot of text for the background section of a court case, and I expect that some or even a lot of it may be trimmed, though many of these details are relevant to understanding the case itself and/or understanding public discussion of the case. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)