A fact from Criminal law in the Taney Court appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 June 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Taney Court held that it had no jurisdiction to review former Congressman Clement Vallandigham's arrest and trial by military commission by means of habeas corpus?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is only about U.S. law. I think the intro currently makes that clear, by referring to the Supreme Court of the United States and by using the template for this series of articles on "History of U.S. federal criminal law" (which is so titled, in bold). Further, the party name "United States v. Rogers" should be a dead givewaway. All of that notwithstanding, I would be open to other reasonable, additional ways to make this clear. But, the two ways proposed by User:Pigsonthewing so far are not acceptable. First, an opening sentence of "The Taney Court (1836–1864) heard thirty United States criminal law cases" (with "United States criminal law" being a single bluelink) is downright misleading. It suggests that the Court heard 30 U.S. criminal law cases, and some other number concerning non-U.S. law (perhaps 20 concerning the criminal law of Canada). Second, the {{Globalize}} template is plainly not indicated (and, in fact, I view its use as a clear violation of WP:POINT). This template would apply only if substantial content concerning the laws of other countries should be added to this article. Plainly, it should not. Savidan22:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, rather then simply resisting every effort to improve the article in this regard, in the service of our readers, you could suggest an improvemnt that does meet your standards? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the current intro is fine. As for "every effort," so far the only two efforts have been: (1) clearly misleading (see above); and (2) the insertion of a template which you should have known to be unwarranted when you inserted it. Savidan17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
