Template talk:US criminal due process

WP:REDNOT

This policy does not apply here. It says: "Do not create red links to articles that will likely never be created." There is no reason to believe that articles about Supreme Court cases will likely never be created. Articles about Supreme Court cases, for all areas of law, and all eras, are created every day. There is an entire WikiProject devoted to this effort, and no such article has ever been deleted as non-notable. While red-links are sometimes omitted from navboxes, WP:REDNOT has an explicit exception. "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set." These articles are part of a set, namely the set of Supreme Court cases that apply the Due Process Clause to criminal proceedings. That some sub-set happens to be entirely empty is irrelevant (just as, in a list of all presidential elections in a country, it would be irrelevant that one particular decade or century was all red). The red links are necessary to give the reader the context of the full set. It is misleading to omit the entire sub-set from the set. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Redlinks encourage article creation. They are not a cancer to be eliminated for mere aesthetic reasons. Savidan 20:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Templates are navigation tools for going from one article to another. How can from one article to another when the the article don't exist?

There is no source for these cases being a series. What they are cases you feel should be grouped together. Well that's your belief, not fact....William 23:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Both lists and templates may and often should contain articles that do not exist yet, for the purposes of completeness. The grouping of these cases is based on relatively objective criteria. The fact that they are (1) criminal cases, (2) that interpret the Due Process Clause are relatively objective facts that are easy to verify and not subject to any reasonable dispute. You can find the citations for the cases at List of United States Supreme Court cases involving constitutional criminal procedure, on which this template is based. Savidan 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

'should contain' is your opinion again. I am not saying they don't exist, but what says these belong as a group other than you? The USSC has handed down rulings for over 200 years, are these the only cases in the field? I'm sure they aren't, so they've been selected....William 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The intent is to be comprehensive. If anyone finds any others, they are free to add. Judging by EncMstr's examples below, it appears your view is not supported by the policy, and you should attempt to change the practice in a more centralized place, not on this template specifically. Savidan 23:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't choose anywhere. What happened is I discovered a template that was 100% redlinks. Totally failing WP:REDNOT and the purpose of templates, to navigate from similar article to similar article....William 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Savidan. Navigation templates serve several purposes: navigation, categorization, organization, context, binding like articles, and highlighting articles needing to be written. Here are some prime examples:

Notice how clearly these indicate what is left to be done. —EncMstr (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument....William 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"OSE" is not my argument. My first point was showing good use of redlinks.

Redlinks to unlikely articles are discouraged per WP:REDLINK. Redlinks to likely articles are encouraged per WP:REDLINK.

Redlinks are unacceptable in an article's See also section. But they are acceptable even in disambiguation pages in several cases. There are also set indexes which are perhaps most similar to a navbox template. —EncMstr (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No you definitely did make WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument here by bringing in two unrelated templates into this discussion as argument in favor of the redlinks. ...William 15:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It appears there is agreement that red links can appear in nav boxes if they belong in a set (in order to show the complete set), as per the WP:REDNOT exception noted above. If there isn't agreement on that, let's discuss that further. The disagreement, as I understand, regards whether the cases in question in fact form a complete set. To be clear, we should recognize that this is really a two part question: 1) is there a well-defined set in the nav box overall? 2) is there a well-defined categorical organization of the links within the nav box? Both questions can be answered by determining whether the links are related 1) are they all links to cases having to do with United States criminal due process case law? and 2) are they all links to cases having to do with adjudicative competence (for example)? To determine whether the links are related, you need to refer to reliable sources. You should not base this determination on "relatively objective critera" that isn't clearly based on reliable third party sources referenced in the articles, especially if there is controversy over whether these categories or the links within the categories is appropriate. The policy on nav boxes says "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles - If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them." This means you need to rely on the articles that have been written to determine the related cases and how to categorize them. If the articles don't make this clear, then you shouldn't include them in the nav boxes.

Coastside (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. As for sources, I have never seen a template cite sources as I do not understand you to be advocating that. If it were true that there was a per se requirement that an article contain a footnote supporting the article's inclusion on the template before it could be included on the template, that would be the same as saying that redlinks could never appear in templates. However, such is not the widespread practice in Wikipedia, nor the wording of the guideline. What meaning could the "set" exception have if in fact redlinks were always disqualified because a non-existent article never contains any sources (yet)? Further, there is no actual dispute about whether any of these cases belong to a set (or at least there shouldn't be). The inclusion of each is supported by the sources (the case citations) in the list I have linked above. Savidan 01:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - as a member of WP:SCOTUS and WP:LAW, I agree with Savidan. The articles are likely to be created, will be notable, and are related to the cases listed. GregJackP Boomer! 02:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I have never seen a template cite sources as I do not understand you to be advocating that." No, I'm not advocating that templates cite sources. Re: "If it were true that there was a per se requirement that an article contain a footnote supporting the article's inclusion on the template before it could be included on the template... The policy on nav templates says simply that the articles in the templates should be "established as related by reliable sources in the actual article". The example of {{Wind power}} given in the policy is informative. It says "a navigation box can provide a comprehensive introduction to a topic," but it assumes explicitly that "the main Wind power article already contains inline links to the subsidiary articles." The point of this is that editors should not introduce original research in the nav templates. The pages should all be referenced in the articles contained in the nav template, and it is understood that the the articles themselves are properly sourced and do not contain original research. Although nav templates may include red links to articles if these articles are related and form a complete set, the articles should be referenced directly (with a red link) from at least one other article included in the nav template and the relationship with the other articles should be clear. If one of these unwritten articles is not mentioned anywhere other than in the nav template or it doesn't make the relationships clear, then the nav template is the only place where the relationship between the articles is explained, and since nav templates don't include citations, this would constitute original research. As you point out the section on Criminal due process in the list of US Supreme court cases involving constitutional criminal procedure includes all the relevant articles, so it should be ok to include these in the nav boxes (I say should be ok because I don't see proper sourcing in this page, but that's another matter). The problem is that the categories in the nav box for Criminal due Process does not match the organization on that page. Re: "there is no actual dispute about whether any of these cases belong to a set From my review of the third opinion request, the whole point of the debate appears to be that there is indeed a dispute over the categorization. For example: "There is no source for these cases being a series. What they are cases you feel should be grouped together. Well that's your belief, not fact...." Coastside (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The list includes a Due Process Clause section that includes all these cases. Every case in the list includes a case citation. Following that citatation (granted it is not an external link, but such is not required), will get you to the text of the case which will clearly indicate beyond any reasonable dispute that the case is a criminal case and the issue decided by the court was the interpretation of the Due Process Clause. Would it satisfy you if the list was included on this template? I don't quite agree with the strictness of the rule you have proposed, nor do I see it spelled out in the policy cited, but if that is all you are asking for, it is an easy compromise. Savidan 00:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree policy guidelines shouldn't be applied strictly. What I'm trying to point out with reference to the policy guidelines is that how the nav templates are organized and which articles are included can be legitimately argued to be OR if not defended by sources in the actual articles. The request for a third party opinion came because someone argued against including red link cases in the nav template, and I am offering the opinion that this argument is defensible. Including red link cases emphasizes the importance of those cases over other excluded ones, and this emphasis is arguably OR since it's not reflected in the actual articles. One could argue that including any subset of the cases while excluding others unduely emphasizes those articles, red link or not, and I think that, too, is a defensible argument. It's an even stronger argument for red link cases because it would appear to the reader that these cases were specifically included even though an article has not been written for that case when other cases were excluded. Of course, you don't have to include all the cases. The key here is to reach a consensus, ideally based on the source material, about what to include and how to organize them. It's probably worth taking another look at why there is no consensus here. It's not an unreasonable or arbitrary argument. It's about the emphasis placed on these particular cases. How is it you decided these particular red link cases should be included over others? Was it your own personal (OR) judgement that these cases are important? Was it something else? Perhaps if you make this reasoning clearer it would help to justify including them. Coastside (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Templates are WP:Navbox meant for navigation between related articles. They aren't meant to be lists. If someone wanted to make a list of these cases covering the law covered in any of these templates, fine. A well written introduction can put them all in context too. In the meantime what good does a template consisting entirely of redlinks do?[1](Look at Use of False Evidence template. Which brings up another matter, all these templates but this particular one has its own WP article on the topic. Is this template WP:OR?) Nothing, and WP:REDNOT still applies....William 15:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Coastside, does it not satisfy you that all of the redlinks are included in United States constitutional criminal procedure#Due process, which is one of the main articles associated with, and linked from, the template? Perhaps I should have mentioned this along with the list. 19:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out this due process article just helps to build the case that these sets in the templates are WP:OR. Simply because one of your groupings, Use of False Evidence, isn't a subject matter on the due process page you link to unlike the three other parts of the template....William 19:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll find it under "prosecutorial misconduct"... Savidan 19:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like some progress now. The article does provide a way to present related links in a helpful way. Someone reading that article would have a way to navigate through the cases mentioned and then from one case to another. The organization categories reflect that article, too, with the noted exception of "False Evidence." I think it would be helpful to move this discussion from whether the nav template is OR to what to include and how to organize the template. Reference to this article is a good starting point. Showing an exhaustive list of cases may not be the best answer from a practical point of view, and having no template at all would deprive readers of a helpful tool. So we need a neutral way to define what's in the template. I was thinking it might be helpful to find a reference for number of citations to individual cases as a way to draw a cut-line. Inclusion in the article mentioned here is another reasonable way (if it's important enough to use in the article, it's important enough for readers to want to navigate to an article on it). What if we used the categories on that page in the nav (reasonable doubt, Brady disclosure, mental competence and prosecutorial misconduct)? Coastside (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. To be clear, the neutral way to define what's in the template is to be exhaustive. The intent is to include every U.S. Supreme Court case that applies the Due Process Clause to criminal proceedings. I have not omitted any that I am aware of, and I have used reasonable efforts to find others (e.g., looking at which Supreme Court cases are cited in and by the other cases). Savidan 07:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Then the template fails WP:REDNOT because this is not a set but somebody's WP:OR as to what should be listed and what isn't....William 10:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you think it's OR if it is all-inclusive. In any case, what do you suggest is in the template? Coastside (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not all inclusive unless it involves all the USSC rulings on this type of law....William 19:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a very strange position to take that listing Supreme Court cases by their subject-matter is original research. If that is truly User:WilliamJE's position, he may wish to nominate every member of Category:Lists of United States Supreme Court cases for deletion. Perhaps he would be OK with the lists by volume, perhaps not. Afterall, the only source for which volume of the United States Reports the cases belong to is . . . the U.S. Reports. It is also vexatious for User:WilliamJE to continue to insist that some nefarious decision has been made about what is listed and what's not, when no good faith, bona fide dispute exists as to even a single case. Savidan 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Again I will repeat this and wait for your explanation. Who other than yourself consider this group of cases a set or series? Give everyone here a source. This is where I expect failure, unless these are all the cases on this type of law that the USSC has rules, then there is a selection process being done. If the selection process is out there, provide the source. If there is no source for these cases to be a set or series, then its WP:OR. I will await your reply....William 19:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete my replies

See here. Deleting someone else's comments is certainly improper behavior. Deleting your own is also somewhat questionable. Savidan 23:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It was an accident and I deleted something I wrote too. You missed something again. An edit summary.'[2]

Disputes about inclusion

If any editor has gone to the text of one of the redlinked cases and has any reason to doubt that the case was a criminal case or that the case interpreted the Due Process Clause, please note that in this section. Conversely, if you find a single such case that has been omitted, either add it or note it here. Savidan 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS

Myself, EncMstr, and GregJackP have unequivocally supported the version of the template that contains redlinks. Coastside originally disagreed, but now supports the redlink version as modified. User:WilliamJE is the only one who persists in objecting. While I am happy to continue discussing the issue with him if he has any new points to make, I think the time has come for him to respect the consensus. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt while at least one other user agreed with him, but it is no longer acceptable for him to revert endlessly while contributing only conclusory and repetitive points to the discussion. Among other things, WP:RFC is open to him. Savidan 17:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE has taken the extraordinary step of reverting to his preferred version and then nominating the template for deletion. If he thinks the template is worthy of deletion, he shouldn't much care which version prevails, since a nomination for deletion is equivalent to saying that no reasonable editing improvements will make the template worth keeping. Thus, even if the consensus had not already turned against him, common decency would seem to dictate that he let the version of the template preferred by those who do not support its deletion stand for the duration of the deletion discussion. Savidan 19:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

While Savidan looks for his source*, I have a proposal to make and it was mentioned earlier. A list for each type of cases, Reasonable Doubt, Brady Disclosure, etc. Either in the articles themselves or as a separate list article. Redlinks are fine in both of those instances.

I'd be willing to work on the lists but would need assistance and would accept that help from Savidan.I've created over 100 wikipedia articles but none involving court decisions. Mainly because I'm not a lawyer but then I'm not a pro baseball player either and that hasn't stopped me from creating baseball player articles.

• I have found with google a USSC decision on Reasonable Doubt that wasn't in the template, redlink or otherwise. The Reasonable Doubt section's first case was 1952. Are you telling me the USSC never made a RD decision before that? As I said these templates aren't sets but cherrypicking aka [[WP:OR, so WP:REDNOT applies.

This proposal is nonsensical (since there already is such an article and list). If you have found an omitted decision, please name it! As for pre-1952, the concept of reasonable doubt may have existed, but not necessarily as a constitutional requirement of the Due Process Clause. Savidan 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Template:Criminal due process → Template: US criminal due process – The US is not the only place where due process exists, indeed our article on it starts off by mentioning the Magna Carta, which is not a US document. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per nom. I don't really find it necessary at this point, but it'll free up the name in case someone wants to make an international version of this template.--Chaser (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support in general per missing international context, but the new name might also include U.S. Supreme Court—at least all the blue links mention it. —EncMstr (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support but disagree on adding SCOTUS to the title as appellate court cases may be notable enough to be relevant, such as the First Circuit's Glick case is to videographers rights under the First Amendment. GregJackP Boomer! 23:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Okay, I didn't know about that. Disregard my suggestion. —EncMstr (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.