This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
A news item involving R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 January 2017. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The content of the section "Hearing" is mainly derived from Brexit [1], where the text has been trimmed. [2] Qexigator ( talk) 10:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Could anyone help out an American? How would this case name be spoken aloud within the UK legal system? "Crown against Secretary of State"? "Miller and Secretary of State"? Telos ( talk) 21:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am a law student and because of the slightly complex way the case is listed, the pronunciation is a bit strange. The Miller matter is spoken as "The Queen on the Application of Miller and Dos Santos and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union". In the Northern Irish cases (the McCord and Agnew matters), they are spoken as "In the matter of the Northern Ireland references". -- The Historian ( talk) 17:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E - notability is from court case (event) - all sources are about bio behind the court case topic (with minor exceptions about husband, and primary for her foundation) Widefox; talk 00:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union →
R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – New or corrected or both traditional or "non-neutral" case citation now given, assigned or confirmed by the
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC)
[4]. --
87.102.116.36 (
talk) 12:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The supposed copyvio text of direct quotes from the court's judgment, seems to be surplus to the article's requirements, and will be superseded in a few weeks by the hearing and judgment of the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Who or what is "Dos Santos"? -- Bogger ( talk) 11:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The article will need some further copy-editing/correcting when the current spate of edits has abated. Perhaps also, before long, there will be some citable comment from RS. Qexigator ( talk) 16:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The case naming should be consistent with the case title etc shown in the linked SC judgment [5] and [6]. This shows that the judgment was formally listed in respect of three matters:
In respect of the appeal, three groups of lawyers are listed:
Others were listed as follows
Given the legal and political issues involved, I propose to make a new section to contain this information, with the intent of showing the article's readers how the various interests were able to appear and be heard by the court, or make written submissions only. Qexigator ( talk) 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Now done. [7] Qexigator ( talk) 17:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
§ Press reaction If other editors agree, I propose restoring the image [8] which was previously used in this article, showing the four newspaper headlines. It's important to show the broadsheets as well as the tabloids, they are all discussed in the text. Simply showing the Mail front page does not adequately get the message across about the breath of newspaper coverage attacking the judgement; it suggests it was a tabloid issue. The BBC reporoduce multiple newpaper front pages daily [9] so I do not see a NFC issue here as long as the article specifically discusses all four front pages, comapring and contrasting them. Whizz40 ( talk) 20:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
A news item involving R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 January 2017. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The content of the section "Hearing" is mainly derived from Brexit [1], where the text has been trimmed. [2] Qexigator ( talk) 10:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Could anyone help out an American? How would this case name be spoken aloud within the UK legal system? "Crown against Secretary of State"? "Miller and Secretary of State"? Telos ( talk) 21:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I am a law student and because of the slightly complex way the case is listed, the pronunciation is a bit strange. The Miller matter is spoken as "The Queen on the Application of Miller and Dos Santos and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union". In the Northern Irish cases (the McCord and Agnew matters), they are spoken as "In the matter of the Northern Ireland references". -- The Historian ( talk) 17:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E - notability is from court case (event) - all sources are about bio behind the court case topic (with minor exceptions about husband, and primary for her foundation) Widefox; talk 00:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union →
R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – New or corrected or both traditional or "non-neutral" case citation now given, assigned or confirmed by the
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC)
[4]. --
87.102.116.36 (
talk) 12:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The supposed copyvio text of direct quotes from the court's judgment, seems to be surplus to the article's requirements, and will be superseded in a few weeks by the hearing and judgment of the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Who or what is "Dos Santos"? -- Bogger ( talk) 11:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The article will need some further copy-editing/correcting when the current spate of edits has abated. Perhaps also, before long, there will be some citable comment from RS. Qexigator ( talk) 16:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The case naming should be consistent with the case title etc shown in the linked SC judgment [5] and [6]. This shows that the judgment was formally listed in respect of three matters:
In respect of the appeal, three groups of lawyers are listed:
Others were listed as follows
Given the legal and political issues involved, I propose to make a new section to contain this information, with the intent of showing the article's readers how the various interests were able to appear and be heard by the court, or make written submissions only. Qexigator ( talk) 13:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Now done. [7] Qexigator ( talk) 17:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
§ Press reaction If other editors agree, I propose restoring the image [8] which was previously used in this article, showing the four newspaper headlines. It's important to show the broadsheets as well as the tabloids, they are all discussed in the text. Simply showing the Mail front page does not adequately get the message across about the breath of newspaper coverage attacking the judgement; it suggests it was a tabloid issue. The BBC reporoduce multiple newpaper front pages daily [9] so I do not see a NFC issue here as long as the article specifically discusses all four front pages, comapring and contrasting them. Whizz40 ( talk) 20:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)