![]() | Berghuis v. Thompkins 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 21, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in
Berghuis v. Thompkins the
United States Supreme Court ruled that failing to claim the
right to silence means police can use any voluntary statements regardless of length of interrogation? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
The "Associate justices" listed in the infobox as dissenting include Justice David Souter, whose name is not listed in support of the ruling or dissent. The dissent was by Justice Sonia Sotomayor whose name is omitted from the list of associate justices.
Can someone check this? FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Note for future - eventually when Law Report 560 is complete, the citation will need to be updated to reflect its permanent reference. For now it is simply "560 US (tba)". FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer:
GregJackP (
talk)
21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Very good article. You may also want to look as WP:SCOTUS for the format that they recommend for Supreme Court articles, and consider modifying the article to match, although if you chose not to, it would not prevent promotion. I've put it on hold so it can be worked on. Regards, GregJackP ( talk) 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Updated comments. GregJackP ( talk) 14:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Several of the quotes in the "Rationale" section are in italics. Is the emphasis in the original or is it added? If the quotes were not in italics, it should not be in italics here. See italic type. If the author of that section wishes to add emphasis, the disclaimers "(emphasis added)" and "(emphasis in the original)" should be used depending on the circumstances. The US Supreme Court often uses italics for emphasis and will add the two disclaimers when quoting previous opinions. The quotation is more meaningful if we can tell if the emphasis is coming from The Court or the author(s) of the article. 24.38.31.81 ( talk) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The sentence is "Others saw the ruling as a sign of strength and a signal that the Court, under its own impetus, was willing to address known issues resulting from the view of terrorism as crime." Am I being stupid here? This makes no sense to me. I think this and the sentence after should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonpew ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Berghuis v. Thompkins 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
June 21, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in
Berghuis v. Thompkins the
United States Supreme Court ruled that failing to claim the
right to silence means police can use any voluntary statements regardless of length of interrogation? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
The "Associate justices" listed in the infobox as dissenting include Justice David Souter, whose name is not listed in support of the ruling or dissent. The dissent was by Justice Sonia Sotomayor whose name is omitted from the list of associate justices.
Can someone check this? FT2 ( Talk | email) 04:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Note for future - eventually when Law Report 560 is complete, the citation will need to be updated to reflect its permanent reference. For now it is simply "560 US (tba)". FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer:
GregJackP (
talk)
21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Very good article. You may also want to look as WP:SCOTUS for the format that they recommend for Supreme Court articles, and consider modifying the article to match, although if you chose not to, it would not prevent promotion. I've put it on hold so it can be worked on. Regards, GregJackP ( talk) 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Updated comments. GregJackP ( talk) 14:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Several of the quotes in the "Rationale" section are in italics. Is the emphasis in the original or is it added? If the quotes were not in italics, it should not be in italics here. See italic type. If the author of that section wishes to add emphasis, the disclaimers "(emphasis added)" and "(emphasis in the original)" should be used depending on the circumstances. The US Supreme Court often uses italics for emphasis and will add the two disclaimers when quoting previous opinions. The quotation is more meaningful if we can tell if the emphasis is coming from The Court or the author(s) of the article. 24.38.31.81 ( talk) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The sentence is "Others saw the ruling as a sign of strength and a signal that the Court, under its own impetus, was willing to address known issues resulting from the view of terrorism as crime." Am I being stupid here? This makes no sense to me. I think this and the sentence after should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonpew ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)