This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article was tagged for referring to other cases as references instead of using law review articles, which I disagree with. Brandenburg was cited because the Supreme Court did not provide the facts of the case but in its opinion referenced this other case. Gulf Offshore was referenced because Scalia stated in his dissent that it had an incorrect holding. Lastly there are no law review articles yet on the Maryland state chartered S&L collapse. Deanlaw (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged for using only primary sources. The suggestion (sorry it wasn't worded better) was to try law review articles which are not primary sources, but feel free to use other non-primary sources such as newspaper articles (likely one exists on the run cited, which could replace the need for the Brandenburg cite), text books, and so on. The point about primary sources is that the editor, such as yourself, is then interpreting the source (or case/statute in this instance), which is generally original research. Primary sources can be used, but should only be used sparingly. The use of Brandenburg here meets the criteria for usage of the primary source, but the article still relies entirely on primary sources, thus the tag. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
