From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details |
|
|
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
The initial suggestion to merge this article into Jake Baker has failed to recieve any commentary since January, so I've dropped that proposal and put in one of my own – merge that article into this one. The reason – Jake Baker/Abraham Jacob Alkhabaz is a totally non-notable individual (even within the genre of written erotica) apart from his role in this case and faded back into obscurity after the case was closed. The article Jake Baker contains nothing about the man other than the facts leading up to the case and a description of the case itself. United States v. Jake Baker is a very notable and important case in free speech law. Jake Baker the author and Abraham Alkhabaz the man are quite non-notable. Iamcuriousblue 20:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, no response on either talk page after over two months, so I went ahead and did the merge. Peter G Werner 21:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Also noting that the merger is in keeping with WP:BLP1E – I should have noted that earlier. Peter G Werner 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- The name of this article is of the district court case U.S. v. Baker 890 F.Supp. 1375 (E.D.Mich.,1995). U.S. v. Alkhabaz 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997) is the name of the Appeals Court decision. The District Court case has been cited one other time by a Federal Court. U.S. v. Alkhabaz has been cited 181 times (although 161 of them are articles, 20 are court decisions). We generally include the trial court case with the appeal. I would recommend moving this article to U.S. v. Alkhabaz and referencing the trial court case there. Legis Nuntius (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
I'd like to help, can I get some comments about what needs to be done? -Lciaccio (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Several things I can think of offhand - 1) the timeline needs to go and be replaced by text describing the course of the case; 2) the facts stated in the article are totally unreferenced and uncited – the statements in the article need to be either referenced or removed and replaced by text that is based on cited, referenced sources; and 3) the article needs to be both expanded and restructured somewhat – an example of a really well-put-together article on a US court case would be the Roe v. Wade article.
- Anything you can do to improve the article would be great. Thanks! Peter G Werner (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
