Talk:Sugar bowl (legal maxim)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sugar bowl (legal maxim). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fclr.org/docs/2006fedctslrev4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Mar-a-Lago and more recent [post-2006] evidentiary sugar bowls of documentation
[edit]The sugar bowl doctrine would appear to be current in view of the searches in Mar-a-Lago during August 2022 [in succession to the 6 January riots of 2021].
Documents cannot fit in sugar bowls - however; sugar bowls fit in incinerators [or their 21st century shredding equivalent - destruction of evidence].
And I wonder if people have been looking at other search and seizure articles.
Is the 2006 article cited and summarised here the best/most neutral way to be reading about sugar bowls and understanding the concept in a Wikipedia way? --114.72.47.174 (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC).
Cannot find sources; is the topic notable?
[edit]There appear to be no, or at most extremely few, reliable sources on this topic; the entire article appears to develop from a figure of speech used in the single currently cited source (from 2006). I get no indication from web searches that the term is widely used or notable. (The article already has a template calling for better citations. I think I'll add a 'notability' template once I figure out how to combine templates.) Teacher1850 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)