Talk:Supreme court
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Adding Indonesia
editIndonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world. Is there a specific process by which countries' supreme courts are selected for addition to the list, or would it be fine to just add Supreme Court of Indonesia? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Be Bold! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sir yes sir! MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- But add some sources to the new section, please. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @TJRC: I've added a few sources, but sourcing for the second paragraph (the one on the Supreme Court itself) is proving problematic. The sources in the main article are all print sources which I don't have access to. Do we have an exact site guideline on how to deal with sources accepted by default/silent consensus but which an editor hasn't verified? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- My sense is that if it can't be supported, it shouldn't be added to the article. I would be hesitant to copy the references without being able to check them; mostly because I've seen many times where a statement is quite properly added with a reference; and then, over time, the statement becomes modified, or text is added after it, so that the reference no longer actually supports the statement that it abuts. I wouldn't want to carry that over to a second article.
- Perhaps the best approach is to request a better cite in the other article; and not let it creep into here without verification. Not that there's anything wrong with having a print source as a cite; but if it can't be verified, it's difficult to re-use in another article.
- Kudos for your work on this, BTW. TJRC (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm trying my best, though I must admit that I'm still new to articles on law and legal figures. Following your advice, I'll leave those sources out for now and see what I can find either online or (crossing my fingers here) at my local library's Asian section. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- @TJRC: I've added a few sources, but sourcing for the second paragraph (the one on the Supreme Court itself) is proving problematic. The sources in the main article are all print sources which I don't have access to. Do we have an exact site guideline on how to deal with sources accepted by default/silent consensus but which an editor hasn't verified? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- But add some sources to the new section, please. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sir yes sir! MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Uncited Sources
editI have noticed a lot of information is uncited in this article. Please contribute to this article by citing sources to existing information or when adding new information. Uncited information cannot be proven may be deleted over time if not properly cited. Examples of uncited information include the paragraphs from the countries of South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. 12.227.66.34 (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Should the UK Supreme Court be moved to the "Mixed" jurisdiction category?
editThe UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for Scottish civil appeals, which are under the Scottish civil law system, not the English & Welsh common law system. At least, that's my understanding. But doesn't that mean it should be in the "Mixed jurisdiction" category, just like the Supreme Court of Canada, which also has jurisdiction over common law and civil law? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Upper case "Supreme Court"?
editIt’s supposed to be Supreme Court not Supreme court — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeC1960 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No; it's not a proper noun referring to any particular court, so it's lower-cased. TJRC (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Does it really matter if it is the Supreme Court or Supreme court? 2A01:4B00:B602:2600:9793:C64C:A294:DF28 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Original research
editWhile individual section are simply underreferenced, the lede is a glaring case of questionable and even self-contradictory original research. --Altenmann >talk 02:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)