User talk:LexisNexisWest

Welcome!

Hi LexisNexisWest! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Yung

Please do not use Terence Yung's biography page to attempt to litigate his case. References to motions filed in courts, while verifiable, are primary sources: they represent Yung's own thinking on the matter, not the reporting of reliable secondary sources. Yung has been sentenced; if he is appealing that sentence (and if that fact has been reported in reliable sources), that single fact is admissible, but we don't need an entire argument of why he is appealing. If his appeal succeeds (and if that fact is reported by reliable sources), then we can include that fact when it becomes available.

By the way, your user page notes that you are a lawyer. If you represent Yung, that is a grave conflict of interest which would need to be disclosed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morning, WikiDan61. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm certainly NOT representing Mr. Yung in any capacity. I must also sharply disagree with your position. Many cases are considered encyclopedic, even though the litigant did not prevail. To take but one example, the Dred Scott decision sanctioning separate but equal doctrine is a subject of its own article here, even though Dred Scott lost. So the idea that we can include a legal argument only after the litigant prevails is a new one in terms of encyclopedic requirements. I found Mr. Yung's arguments to be both compelling and interesting, and they ought to be included in an article. LexisNexisWest (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If any precedent-setting decision is made, pro or con, based on Yung's case, it might well be worth including, but failing that, your opinion about the interesting nature of the arguments are not relevant. For the record, it is likely that Yung's lawyer, not Yung himself, was responsible for the arguments in his case, unless he was acting pro se (which would be extremely foolish in a case of such gravity). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]