![]() | Bank Markazi v. Peterson has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 19, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bank Markazi v. Peterson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Bank Markazi v. Peterson appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 May 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the moment, this article uses Template:Rp to cite pages in the Court's slip opinion. The pages listed in this article's citations are to the page numbers of the PDF document, rather than the pagination in the slip opinion. Unless I hear objections from other editors, I am going to go ahead and change the citations to direct readers to the pagination in the slip opinion. This will also allow us to follow Bluebook conventions when citing to the convention (as recommended by MOS:LAW), and it will allow us to cite to the correct page in the dissenting opinion (where the pagination restarts at page 1). Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 02:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.
Page numbers have been fixed. I divided the slip op reference into two separate references (majority opinion and dissenting opinion) and changed the page number used to the page number of the respective opinion. A couple inline citations to the syllabus (which justices joined which opinion) have been replaced with references to the SCOTUS docket. AHeneen ( talk) 01:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@ AHeneen: Thank you for your continued efforts to improve and expand this article! I know that you anticipate nominating this for GA status, so I'd like to offer a few brief editorial suggestions:
Let me know if any of the above comments are unclear. Thanks again for your hard work! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 18:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The wording
means that
As that is cryptic, it seems likely that the editor intended to say that the account was indeed an asset, but also an account
rather than to the bank. Someone with an interest in the topic rather than the wording will be a better editor than i, to check whether my guess is right, so i have tagged it as "Vague" rather than making it read
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 May 2016
In 2010, the plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit against Bank Markazi, Clearstream, Banca UBAE, and Citibank, jointly, seeking to execute against the Citibank account their judgements for damages against Iran, based on §201(a) of the TRIA, which provides that when "a person has obtained a judgement against a terrorist party ... the blocked assets of that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment."
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Notecardforfree ( talk · contribs) 06:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
AHeneen — many thanks for your efforts to improve this article. I'll go ahead and complete this GA review over the next few days, but feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 06:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for not returning to this review sooner; this was a particularly busy work week for me. Overall, I think this is a very nice article and I comment your efforts to expand coverage of SCOTUS cases on Wikipedia. This article is not far from passing, but I have identified a few issues that should be resolved before this article is promoted:
"eliminated all of a party's defenses."I recognize that, as a practical matter, 22 U.S.C. § 8772 slammed the door shut on Bank Markazi's case, but did it really abrogate all their defenses? For example, couldn't they still argue that Iran had a constitutionally protected interest in those assets?
eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised. Page 10 of the Second Circuit's decision rejects a Takings Clause challenge. Because the judgments for liability for the terrorist acts were final, seizing the Citibank account to satisfy those judgments was not a constitutionally-prohibited taking. Footnote 14 (p. 11) of the SCOTUS opinion notes that Bank Markazi and Clearstream unsuccessfully sought to have §8772 defeated on other constitutional grounds—the Bill of Attainder, Ex Post Facto, Equal Protection, and Takings Clauses—but those claims were no longer pursued. See also pp. 115a-121a of the Cert petition (162-168 of the PDF file).
"... the Chief Justice explained that § 8772 is a type of unconstitutional breach of the separation 'whereby Congress assumes the role of judge and decides a particular case in the first instance.'"I would change "breach of the separation" to something like "breach of the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government" or something like that.
the Chief Justice explained that § 8772 is a type of unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers between Congress and the judiciary "whereby Congress assumes the role of judge and decides a particular case in the first instance."
"an exception ... for victims of state-sponsored terrorism", I would write the footnote like this: Bank Markazi, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1)).
"allows judgments to be executed against 'the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party'"I recommend a few things. First, the quoted language appears inside quotation marks in the source, so it should be set apart with single quotation marks (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS; alternatively, you could note in the footnote that internal quotations are omitted). Second, you need to note that you have added emphasis by italicizing the word "of." Third, I strongly encourage you to note in the footnote that Supreme Court is quoting from section 201(a) of the TRIA (codified as a footnote following 28 U.S.C. § 1610).
"After winning judgments by default ...", the footnote at the end of this sentence should cite pp. 6-8.
"but with a clear evidentiary basis for Iran's liability, they sought writs of execution ...."This makes it sound like the "clear evidentiary basis" allowed them to obtain the writs of execution, but really, the clear evidentiary basis is what allowed them to obtain default judgment.
After winning judgments by default, based on a clear evidentiary basis for Iran's liability, they sought writs of execution against a Citibank account in New York connected with Iran's central bank.
"The name-sake plaintiff"to "the named plaintiff" (in class actions, this would be called the " Lead plaintiff").
"won a judgment in 2001"and that the District Court entered default judgment against Iran in 2007. However, I would explain the procedural history a little differently. It looks like the district court made a determination about liability in 2003 and then made a determination about the amount of damages to which the plaintiffs were entitled (per the reports of the special masters) in 2007. Can you (1) clarify that Peterson intiated proceedings in 2001 and did not recieve a judgment until 2003 and (2) clarify the difference between the 2003 determination of liability and the 2007 award of damages?
The named plaintiff in the case, Deborah Peterson, is the sister of a victim of the Beirut barracks bombings; joined by victims and other relatives of victims, she had won a default judgment in 2003 against Iran for its role in the bombings. Because of the large number of plaintiffs in the case—almost 1,000—the judge appointed special masters to determine each plaintiff's right to collect damages and appropriate amount of damages; in 2007, the judge entered a default judgment against Iran for $2,656,944,877 in damages.
"The account consisted of bonds"the footnote at the end of the sentence should cite p. 9 of the slip opinion.
"In 2010, the plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit ..."you need to use internal quotation marks and because you cite the Second Circuit opinion in the footnote, I strongly recommend that you explain in the footnote that the Second Circuit quoted from the TRIA.
"there were concerns"about the availability of the funds, I would explain that Congress held these concerns, and the footnote at the end of that sentence should cite p. 5 of the slip opinion.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and awarded the assets to the plaintiffs.I doubt many readers would look at the citations (the DC district court is not mentioned in the prose) and be confused about which action occurred in which court.
"Section 8772 also specified ..."you need to use internal quotation marks and I recommend that you explain that SCOTUS was quoting section 8772.
"Bank Markazi conceded ..."you need to use internal quotation marks and I recommend that you explain that SCOTUS was quoting section 8772.
Bank Markazi conceded that they held "equitable title to, or beneficial interest in, the assets", per §8772(a)(2)(A), but then claimed...
"especially considering that"because the "authority over foreign affairs" argument was not central to the Court's analysis (i.e. that in the past, the Court has upheld laws that direct outcomes of specific cases).
...considering also that the law is an exercise...
"say what the law is"quotation, I know that the article says that the Court quoted from Marbury v. Madison, but I still think you need to either use internal quotation marks or note in the footnote that internal quotation marks are omitted.
"may not usurp a court's power ..."quotation also needs internal quotation marks and you need to tell readers that the modification to the quotation can be found in the slip opinion.
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 12 (internal citations omitted)
"the legislature may prescribe ..."you should use internal quotation marks and explain that Justice Ginsburg's opinion is quoting Klein.
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 15 (quoting Klein, 13 Wall., at 146).
"The majority explained that the contemporary significance of Klein ..."you need to (1) indicate internal quotations, (2) indicate modifications to the quotation and explain if alterations that appear in the source have been omitted, and (3) identify the original source of this quoted language.
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 15 n. 19 (internal citations omitted). Is that adequate?
"not a sufficient reason for a court to fail to give that law its intended scope.").
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 16 (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 267–268 (1994))
Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 16 (2016)(quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266–267 (1994))
Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, 578 U.S. ___, slip. op. (2016)
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 16 (2016)(quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266–267 (1994))??
See below for my comments for this section. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 19:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
At the time of the framing of the Constitution ..."the footnote at the end of the sentence does not follow the same citation convention as others in the paragraph (the pin-cite is identified in the text of the footnote, rather than in superscipt alongside the numbered footnote). The same problem occurs in other footnotes in this section too (see, e.g., footnotes 46 and 47).
In this article, when the SCOTUS opinion cites other sources (cases, statutes, etc.), I strongly encourage you to explain in the footnote that the opinion is citing another source. For example, when you say that the FSIA has "an exception ... for victims of state-sponsored terrorism", I would write the footnote like this: Bank Markazi, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1)).
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 7 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman SS Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113 (1948)). Doing that is impractical in the superscript. I realize that it would be better to change the entire article to short footnotes, but that is a major task and I hope that for now what I did is acceptable. I'm not trying to be a pain, just putting off the labor-intensive job of changing the footnote style to shortened footnotes. AHeneen ( talk) 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"The constitution protects the right to privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)."and you wrote
"In Joe v. Schmoe, the Court affirmed the 'right to privacy.'"then you should say in your footnote "internal citations omitted."
See below for my comments for this section. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"There has also been criticism for investing in a hostile country."First, I wouldn't cite to the Financial Tribune article because I don't think it characterizes the United States as a "hostile" nation. Second, if the basis for this sentence is the Arman-e Emrooz headline, then I would re-phrase this sentence to say that at least one commentator believes that officials who served in the Ahmadinijad regime should be prosecuted for investing money in the United States, and if you feel strongly about keeping the work "hostile," I would place it inside quotation marks.
Hamid Baeidinejad, a senior Foreign Ministry official, criticized the former head of the CBI for investing in a "hostile country"
See below for my comments for this section. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"reactions to the ruling were not based on the American legal principles involved in the Supreme Court's decision ...."I would recommend removing this portion of the sentence because none of sources cited at the end of the sentence state that reactions were "not based on the American legal principles."
The decision came at a delicate time for relations between Iran and Western nations, which were removing sanctions on Iran after its compliance with an agreement for curtailing development of its nuclear enrichment program.
I will add comments for the last two sections over the next 24 hours. Please let me know if any of the above comments are unclear or if you have any questions. Thanks again for your strong work on this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 22:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage: a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [footnote 7:] The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.Hopefully, you will find that the lack of reactions from the legal community is acceptable for reaching GA status per the emphasized phrase, although I plan to eventually add it to the article. This is one issue that may prevent this article from eventually reaching FA status. Finally, I may be busy during the next 7-8 days and not have time to promptly address any issues raised. AHeneen ( talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I have addressed most of the issues raised. The only outstanding issues are:
And, of course, the citation style...namely, the lack of short citations throughout the article...but you indicated above that this would be OK. If I nominate this article for FA in the future, I will definitely change the article to use Bluebook-style short citations throughout the article. AHeneen ( talk) 21:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@
AHeneen: My apologies for not being more attentive to this review -- I have been absolutely swamped with work this month. You have done an outstanding job to address the comments in this review, and this article is really looking very good. As I mentioned in my comments above, consistency among citations and internal quotations are things that should be resolved in the future (especially if you plan to nominate this for FA status), but they are not part of the GA criteria. Therefore, there are only two things that still need to be done to promote this article to GA status (both are part of the "due weight"
requirement):
I also agree that for the purposes of this GA review, the article doesn't need a section with reaction from the legal community. However, if you plan to nominate this for FA status in the future, then you should definitely add this section (the commentary by the George Washington Law Review is particularly insightful). Thanks again for your incredible hard work with this article. I hope all is well and that you are enjoying a nice weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 01:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This is mainly a note to myself to collect sources that can be used to improve this article.
Legal community coverage of the decision:
Vaguely-related cases:
Other issues that the bank had raised against the constitutionality of §8772 are discussed in the cert petition on pp. 115a-121a (pp. 162-168 of the PDF file).
-- AHeneen ( talk) 16:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"In the article the term "Terrorism" or "terrorist act" is used to describe the event.
The definition of "terrorism" is clear, (The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).)
The event that the article is about is the act of bombing a milliary installation were the target is milliary personnel, the term "terrorism" is not being used accurately here.
Either the term terrorism must change or the sources for the article that uses the term must be considered bias or unreliable.
I have not seen such contradiction withing the same article on any subject other than when it is about Iran. Only in these instances it is considered ok to write that the target was milliary personnel and milliary installation and then calling it terrorism. This would not be allowed for example if the article was about a drone strike that US have carried out on a wedding ceremony were a single terrorist also is attending.
This is due to the fact that western media do not use the term terrorism to describe events similar to the example i used for different reasons. In this case all Iranian news media sources has been marked as unreliable thus no other point of view can be used as source in any article related to Iran. Gosale ( talk) 06:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
These explanations are unsourced and possibly violate NPOV. They may also be original research as far as I know. There are no inline citations to verify if they are correct. Especially in light of the controversial and legal nature of these articles, it might be best to leave no explanation and leave the wikilinks bare. Laval ( talk) 04:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, this article -- In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 -- doesn't even mention Iran or the allegations being brought against Iran. That article is terrible and needs work, but the explanation here is IMHO problematic and not helpful to the reader. Laval ( talk) 04:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The article currently says the following, indicating that Iran is deciding whether to file suit at the ICJ:
However, Iran made that decision and did file suit, lodging its Application with the ICJ on June 14, 2016. Since then there have been a number of developments in the case. See Certain Iranian Assets. I have a conflict so should not edit on this topic, but I think it is fair and objective for me to point out that the paragraph I quoted above is badly outdated and should be replaced with a new, current one about the ICJ case. 169.252.4.22 ( talk) 19:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Bank Markazi v. Peterson has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 19, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bank Markazi v. Peterson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Bank Markazi v. Peterson appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 May 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
At the moment, this article uses Template:Rp to cite pages in the Court's slip opinion. The pages listed in this article's citations are to the page numbers of the PDF document, rather than the pagination in the slip opinion. Unless I hear objections from other editors, I am going to go ahead and change the citations to direct readers to the pagination in the slip opinion. This will also allow us to follow Bluebook conventions when citing to the convention (as recommended by MOS:LAW), and it will allow us to cite to the correct page in the dissenting opinion (where the pagination restarts at page 1). Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 02:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article.
Page numbers have been fixed. I divided the slip op reference into two separate references (majority opinion and dissenting opinion) and changed the page number used to the page number of the respective opinion. A couple inline citations to the syllabus (which justices joined which opinion) have been replaced with references to the SCOTUS docket. AHeneen ( talk) 01:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@ AHeneen: Thank you for your continued efforts to improve and expand this article! I know that you anticipate nominating this for GA status, so I'd like to offer a few brief editorial suggestions:
Let me know if any of the above comments are unclear. Thanks again for your hard work! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 18:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The wording
means that
As that is cryptic, it seems likely that the editor intended to say that the account was indeed an asset, but also an account
rather than to the bank. Someone with an interest in the topic rather than the wording will be a better editor than i, to check whether my guess is right, so i have tagged it as "Vague" rather than making it read
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 May 2016
In 2010, the plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit against Bank Markazi, Clearstream, Banca UBAE, and Citibank, jointly, seeking to execute against the Citibank account their judgements for damages against Iran, based on §201(a) of the TRIA, which provides that when "a person has obtained a judgement against a terrorist party ... the blocked assets of that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment."
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Notecardforfree ( talk · contribs) 06:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
AHeneen — many thanks for your efforts to improve this article. I'll go ahead and complete this GA review over the next few days, but feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 06:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for not returning to this review sooner; this was a particularly busy work week for me. Overall, I think this is a very nice article and I comment your efforts to expand coverage of SCOTUS cases on Wikipedia. This article is not far from passing, but I have identified a few issues that should be resolved before this article is promoted:
"eliminated all of a party's defenses."I recognize that, as a practical matter, 22 U.S.C. § 8772 slammed the door shut on Bank Markazi's case, but did it really abrogate all their defenses? For example, couldn't they still argue that Iran had a constitutionally protected interest in those assets?
eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised. Page 10 of the Second Circuit's decision rejects a Takings Clause challenge. Because the judgments for liability for the terrorist acts were final, seizing the Citibank account to satisfy those judgments was not a constitutionally-prohibited taking. Footnote 14 (p. 11) of the SCOTUS opinion notes that Bank Markazi and Clearstream unsuccessfully sought to have §8772 defeated on other constitutional grounds—the Bill of Attainder, Ex Post Facto, Equal Protection, and Takings Clauses—but those claims were no longer pursued. See also pp. 115a-121a of the Cert petition (162-168 of the PDF file).
"... the Chief Justice explained that § 8772 is a type of unconstitutional breach of the separation 'whereby Congress assumes the role of judge and decides a particular case in the first instance.'"I would change "breach of the separation" to something like "breach of the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government" or something like that.
the Chief Justice explained that § 8772 is a type of unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers between Congress and the judiciary "whereby Congress assumes the role of judge and decides a particular case in the first instance."
"an exception ... for victims of state-sponsored terrorism", I would write the footnote like this: Bank Markazi, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1)).
"allows judgments to be executed against 'the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party'"I recommend a few things. First, the quoted language appears inside quotation marks in the source, so it should be set apart with single quotation marks (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS; alternatively, you could note in the footnote that internal quotations are omitted). Second, you need to note that you have added emphasis by italicizing the word "of." Third, I strongly encourage you to note in the footnote that Supreme Court is quoting from section 201(a) of the TRIA (codified as a footnote following 28 U.S.C. § 1610).
"After winning judgments by default ...", the footnote at the end of this sentence should cite pp. 6-8.
"but with a clear evidentiary basis for Iran's liability, they sought writs of execution ...."This makes it sound like the "clear evidentiary basis" allowed them to obtain the writs of execution, but really, the clear evidentiary basis is what allowed them to obtain default judgment.
After winning judgments by default, based on a clear evidentiary basis for Iran's liability, they sought writs of execution against a Citibank account in New York connected with Iran's central bank.
"The name-sake plaintiff"to "the named plaintiff" (in class actions, this would be called the " Lead plaintiff").
"won a judgment in 2001"and that the District Court entered default judgment against Iran in 2007. However, I would explain the procedural history a little differently. It looks like the district court made a determination about liability in 2003 and then made a determination about the amount of damages to which the plaintiffs were entitled (per the reports of the special masters) in 2007. Can you (1) clarify that Peterson intiated proceedings in 2001 and did not recieve a judgment until 2003 and (2) clarify the difference between the 2003 determination of liability and the 2007 award of damages?
The named plaintiff in the case, Deborah Peterson, is the sister of a victim of the Beirut barracks bombings; joined by victims and other relatives of victims, she had won a default judgment in 2003 against Iran for its role in the bombings. Because of the large number of plaintiffs in the case—almost 1,000—the judge appointed special masters to determine each plaintiff's right to collect damages and appropriate amount of damages; in 2007, the judge entered a default judgment against Iran for $2,656,944,877 in damages.
"The account consisted of bonds"the footnote at the end of the sentence should cite p. 9 of the slip opinion.
"In 2010, the plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit ..."you need to use internal quotation marks and because you cite the Second Circuit opinion in the footnote, I strongly recommend that you explain in the footnote that the Second Circuit quoted from the TRIA.
"there were concerns"about the availability of the funds, I would explain that Congress held these concerns, and the footnote at the end of that sentence should cite p. 5 of the slip opinion.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and awarded the assets to the plaintiffs.I doubt many readers would look at the citations (the DC district court is not mentioned in the prose) and be confused about which action occurred in which court.
"Section 8772 also specified ..."you need to use internal quotation marks and I recommend that you explain that SCOTUS was quoting section 8772.
"Bank Markazi conceded ..."you need to use internal quotation marks and I recommend that you explain that SCOTUS was quoting section 8772.
Bank Markazi conceded that they held "equitable title to, or beneficial interest in, the assets", per §8772(a)(2)(A), but then claimed...
"especially considering that"because the "authority over foreign affairs" argument was not central to the Court's analysis (i.e. that in the past, the Court has upheld laws that direct outcomes of specific cases).
...considering also that the law is an exercise...
"say what the law is"quotation, I know that the article says that the Court quoted from Marbury v. Madison, but I still think you need to either use internal quotation marks or note in the footnote that internal quotation marks are omitted.
"may not usurp a court's power ..."quotation also needs internal quotation marks and you need to tell readers that the modification to the quotation can be found in the slip opinion.
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 12 (internal citations omitted)
"the legislature may prescribe ..."you should use internal quotation marks and explain that Justice Ginsburg's opinion is quoting Klein.
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 15 (quoting Klein, 13 Wall., at 146).
"The majority explained that the contemporary significance of Klein ..."you need to (1) indicate internal quotations, (2) indicate modifications to the quotation and explain if alterations that appear in the source have been omitted, and (3) identify the original source of this quoted language.
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 15 n. 19 (internal citations omitted). Is that adequate?
"not a sufficient reason for a court to fail to give that law its intended scope.").
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 16 (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 267–268 (1994))
Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 16 (2016)(quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266–267 (1994))
Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, 578 U.S. ___, slip. op. (2016)
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 16 (2016)(quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266–267 (1994))??
See below for my comments for this section. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 19:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
At the time of the framing of the Constitution ..."the footnote at the end of the sentence does not follow the same citation convention as others in the paragraph (the pin-cite is identified in the text of the footnote, rather than in superscipt alongside the numbered footnote). The same problem occurs in other footnotes in this section too (see, e.g., footnotes 46 and 47).
In this article, when the SCOTUS opinion cites other sources (cases, statutes, etc.), I strongly encourage you to explain in the footnote that the opinion is citing another source. For example, when you say that the FSIA has "an exception ... for victims of state-sponsored terrorism", I would write the footnote like this: Bank Markazi, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1)).
Bank Markazi, slip op. at 7 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman SS Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113 (1948)). Doing that is impractical in the superscript. I realize that it would be better to change the entire article to short footnotes, but that is a major task and I hope that for now what I did is acceptable. I'm not trying to be a pain, just putting off the labor-intensive job of changing the footnote style to shortened footnotes. AHeneen ( talk) 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"The constitution protects the right to privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)."and you wrote
"In Joe v. Schmoe, the Court affirmed the 'right to privacy.'"then you should say in your footnote "internal citations omitted."
See below for my comments for this section. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"There has also been criticism for investing in a hostile country."First, I wouldn't cite to the Financial Tribune article because I don't think it characterizes the United States as a "hostile" nation. Second, if the basis for this sentence is the Arman-e Emrooz headline, then I would re-phrase this sentence to say that at least one commentator believes that officials who served in the Ahmadinijad regime should be prosecuted for investing money in the United States, and if you feel strongly about keeping the work "hostile," I would place it inside quotation marks.
Hamid Baeidinejad, a senior Foreign Ministry official, criticized the former head of the CBI for investing in a "hostile country"
See below for my comments for this section. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"reactions to the ruling were not based on the American legal principles involved in the Supreme Court's decision ...."I would recommend removing this portion of the sentence because none of sources cited at the end of the sentence state that reactions were "not based on the American legal principles."
The decision came at a delicate time for relations between Iran and Western nations, which were removing sanctions on Iran after its compliance with an agreement for curtailing development of its nuclear enrichment program.
I will add comments for the last two sections over the next 24 hours. Please let me know if any of the above comments are unclear or if you have any questions. Thanks again for your strong work on this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 22:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage: a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; [footnote 7:] The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.Hopefully, you will find that the lack of reactions from the legal community is acceptable for reaching GA status per the emphasized phrase, although I plan to eventually add it to the article. This is one issue that may prevent this article from eventually reaching FA status. Finally, I may be busy during the next 7-8 days and not have time to promptly address any issues raised. AHeneen ( talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think I have addressed most of the issues raised. The only outstanding issues are:
And, of course, the citation style...namely, the lack of short citations throughout the article...but you indicated above that this would be OK. If I nominate this article for FA in the future, I will definitely change the article to use Bluebook-style short citations throughout the article. AHeneen ( talk) 21:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@
AHeneen: My apologies for not being more attentive to this review -- I have been absolutely swamped with work this month. You have done an outstanding job to address the comments in this review, and this article is really looking very good. As I mentioned in my comments above, consistency among citations and internal quotations are things that should be resolved in the future (especially if you plan to nominate this for FA status), but they are not part of the GA criteria. Therefore, there are only two things that still need to be done to promote this article to GA status (both are part of the "due weight"
requirement):
I also agree that for the purposes of this GA review, the article doesn't need a section with reaction from the legal community. However, if you plan to nominate this for FA status in the future, then you should definitely add this section (the commentary by the George Washington Law Review is particularly insightful). Thanks again for your incredible hard work with this article. I hope all is well and that you are enjoying a nice weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 01:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This is mainly a note to myself to collect sources that can be used to improve this article.
Legal community coverage of the decision:
Vaguely-related cases:
Other issues that the bank had raised against the constitutionality of §8772 are discussed in the cert petition on pp. 115a-121a (pp. 162-168 of the PDF file).
-- AHeneen ( talk) 16:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"In the article the term "Terrorism" or "terrorist act" is used to describe the event.
The definition of "terrorism" is clear, (The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).)
The event that the article is about is the act of bombing a milliary installation were the target is milliary personnel, the term "terrorism" is not being used accurately here.
Either the term terrorism must change or the sources for the article that uses the term must be considered bias or unreliable.
I have not seen such contradiction withing the same article on any subject other than when it is about Iran. Only in these instances it is considered ok to write that the target was milliary personnel and milliary installation and then calling it terrorism. This would not be allowed for example if the article was about a drone strike that US have carried out on a wedding ceremony were a single terrorist also is attending.
This is due to the fact that western media do not use the term terrorism to describe events similar to the example i used for different reasons. In this case all Iranian news media sources has been marked as unreliable thus no other point of view can be used as source in any article related to Iran. Gosale ( talk) 06:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
These explanations are unsourced and possibly violate NPOV. They may also be original research as far as I know. There are no inline citations to verify if they are correct. Especially in light of the controversial and legal nature of these articles, it might be best to leave no explanation and leave the wikilinks bare. Laval ( talk) 04:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, this article -- In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 -- doesn't even mention Iran or the allegations being brought against Iran. That article is terrible and needs work, but the explanation here is IMHO problematic and not helpful to the reader. Laval ( talk) 04:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The article currently says the following, indicating that Iran is deciding whether to file suit at the ICJ:
However, Iran made that decision and did file suit, lodging its Application with the ICJ on June 14, 2016. Since then there have been a number of developments in the case. See Certain Iranian Assets. I have a conflict so should not edit on this topic, but I think it is fair and objective for me to point out that the paragraph I quoted above is badly outdated and should be replaced with a new, current one about the ICJ case. 169.252.4.22 ( talk) 19:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)