Talk:United States v. Alkhabaz

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge

The initial suggestion to merge this article into Jake Baker has failed to recieve any commentary since January, so I've dropped that proposal and put in one of my own – merge that article into this one. The reason – Jake Baker/Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz is a totally non-notable individual (even within the genre of written erotica) apart from his role in this case and faded back into obscurity after the case was closed. The article Jake Baker contains nothing about the man other than the facts leading up to the case and a description of the case itself. United States v. Jake Baker is a very notable and important case in free speech law. Jake Baker the author and Abraham Alkhabaz the man are quite non-notable. Iamcuriousblue 20:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no response on either talk page after over two months, so I went ahead and did the merge. Peter G Werner 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that the merger is in keeping with WP:BLP1E – I should have noted that earlier. Peter G Werner 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this article is of the district court case U.S. v. Baker 890 F.Supp. 1375 (E.D.Mich.,1995). U.S. v. Alkhabaz 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997) is the name of the Appeals Court decision. The District Court case has been cited one other time by a Federal Court. U.S. v. Alkhabaz has been cited 181 times (although 161 of them are articles, 20 are court decisions). We generally include the trial court case with the appeal. I would recommend moving this article to U.S. v. Alkhabaz and referencing the trial court case there. Legis Nuntius (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I'd like to help, can I get some comments about what needs to be done? -Lciaccio (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several things I can think of offhand - 1) the timeline needs to go and be replaced by text describing the course of the case; 2) the facts stated in the article are totally unreferenced and uncited – the statements in the article need to be either referenced or removed and replaced by text that is based on cited, referenced sources; and 3) the article needs to be both expanded and restructured somewhat – an example of a really well-put-together article on a US court case would be the Roe v. Wade article.

Anything you can do to improve the article would be great. Thanks! Peter G Werner (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Baker → United States v. Alkhabaz – This is a discussion about a US Federal Court case. The naming convention requires the use of the case name designated by the Courts. U.S. v. Alkhabaz 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997) is the offical name. Chipermc (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is not an example of a case that's very well-known by an erroneous name, which would possibly justify the incorrect name. There's no reason for it not to be entitled with its correct name. Anyone reading about the case in any legal journal or case will find it cited as United States v. Alkhabaz, and that's what they'll go looking for. I can't think of any reason why the article should be titled with an incorrect name that's not in common use. TJRC (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: the district court case here was entitled United States v. Baker, 890 F. Supp. 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995). I suspect this article was originally written for that decision, likely prior to the appeal. However, it is the appellate case that is the precedential one. To the extent that this article concentrates on the district court decision, it should be updated to focus more on the appellate decision, which is the more notable aspect of the overall controversy that was at issue here. Although I now see that there may be some readers who would search on "United States v. Baker" based on the district court caption, I don't think that changes things. There will still be a redirect from United States v. Baker even after the move, so the use of the "Baker" name at the district court level does not fundamentally change my position. TJRC (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per TJRC's excellent analysis. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page history

From the page history:

18:48, 29 May 2017‎ Nikhil871 (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (9,793 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Nikhil871 moved page United States v. Baker to United States v. Alkhabaz)
18:52, 29 May 2017‎ TJRC (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (9,808 bytes) (0)‎ . . (TJRC moved page United States v. Alkhabaz to United States v. Baker over redirect: Undo move made while Requested Moves discussion still under way)

These will be overwritten by the proposed move. Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.