Talk:Bluebook

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Oregon Style Guide

There is no reference to removing periods from citations for Oregon court documents. Where did the comment come from? "and Oregon's rule that just about all periods are omitted (where the Bluebook would normally require them).[citation needed]"

See OREGON APPELLATE COURTS Style Manual 2002. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Style%20Manual%202002.pdf

The only peculiarity with the Oregon style manual is that the Oregon case citations do not have a period after "Or" for the court name. Bluebook says "Or." in section T.1.

I recommend that the Oregon comment be removed. But I'm not an authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.70 (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited Mar 6th by the same law student as Feb 6th, 2010)

Interesting article on the subject

Christine Hurt, Network Effects and Legal Citation: How Antitrust Theory Predicts Who Will Build a Better Bluebook Mousetrap in the Age of Electronic Mice, 87 Iowa L. Rev. 1257 (2002).

It gives a brief history of the Bluebook and its competitors. --Tregonsee 22:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent article gives a much more complete and researched history of the BB. It "clears the market." See Fred R. Shapiro and Julie Graves Krishnaswami, The Secret History of the Bluebook (Nov. 30, 2015), forthcoming in 100 Minn. L. Rev., No. 4 (2016).     PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies between editions

The article states that the 17th and 18th editions have an inconsistency between them in terms of omitting the jurisdiction when it is indicated by the reporter, but not the court abbreviation. The language quoted does not strike me as an inconsistency. It strikes me that the format that is proper in the 18th edition was the only proper format in the 17th edition, and the parenthetical insertion for the 18th edition serves to clarify this point. 65.42.16.135 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Bluebook 18th ed Cover.gif

Image:The Bluebook 18th ed Cover.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapters

Is it necessary to identify the title of each chapter? We don't do that for any other book. The Bluebook is a comprehensive guide for all legal citation. Most of what's in the chapter titles is implied.--Lindsay 03:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that we should not need to include the chapter structure here. I've seen several Wikipedia editors doing weird stuff like that in a number of articles (like copying in sections of the FRE or FRCP wholesale rather than summarizing key aspects). I think such editors are nonlawyers or first-year law students at mediocre schools! --Coolcaesar 03:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not familiar with the Bluebook's chapters themselves, it appears to me to merely be a listing of the topics addressed, rather than simply a recitation of the table of contents. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Since this is an article on a citation style, we should probably use the Bluebook style for this article. Being bold, I'll change it. GregJackP Boomer! 16:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see any consensus for this edit. In the (IMHO, awkward) absence of in-prose examples, this may demonstrate to editors just how finicky, and manual, is the process of creating Bluebook citations. Moreover, it will serve as testament to blatant disregard for the wiki-wide deprecation of {{smallcaps}} (see docs), and serves as an infection, handily blocking future contributing editors of this article from using templates, since {{smallcaps}} damages COInS data (see docs). Finally it gives the committing editor future grounds to insult future editors for their failure to be "competent" in the use of the (to them) undocumented citation style. --Lexein (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Well intentioned, no doubt, GregJackP, but this Wikipedia article's References section is not the appropriate place to demonstrate Bluebook style citations. The specifics ofBluebook style citations can be better demonstrated in a section of the article itself, if desired. I found it jarring to see the small caps in the References section (which did dissuade me from editing at first) and and hadn't even considered their possible effects on interoperability of citation metadata, as noted by Lexein. In any case, it creates a barrier to editors who may only be assumed to know how to use standard Wikipedia citation templates, at best. And it just doesn't pass the smell test:
"What citations should not do is prance about, showing off your knowledge without adding to the reader’s. That’s just bragging."
Lipson, Charles (2006). Cite Right : A Quick Guide to Citation styles — MLA, APA, Chicago, the Sciences, Professions, and More. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-226-48475-4.
Support immediate reversion to standard citation templates & formatting on grounds of WP:CITEVAR -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP was clearly right. It would be ridiculous in an article on legal citation and the Bluebook to use non-Bluebook style. Furthermore, the jump or pinpoint citations to references would not be correct if the other form of citation were used here. Bouchoux is an example of how the cites would be incorrect if the abcd... system is used. Nobody is interested in the Bluebook except legal writers, and they understand BB style and are not "jarred" by it. The Wik. style manual recognizes that legal articles should use BB style. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Lexein. The Bluebook citation style makes it harder to verify the claim. They are not interlinked to the full citation. QuackGuru (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons to use Bluebook in Law articles that can't be duplicated by another citation style - arguably, if you have competence to edit a law article then you will most likely have seen Bluebook before. It is necessary because Law articles have different rules for primary sources - see MOS:LAW for more about this. You can't just cite directly to dicta. Without Bluebook signals and order of authorities, it isn't possible to cite dicta from cases, etc it would not be possible to write good law articles. It isnt just about smallcaps and short form. When its done properly, with parentheticals it should not make the material more confusing - but I dont know if that is necessary for an article about citation.
P.S. Interlinking as in supra is discouraged by MOS:LAW because the position of notes changes as the article is expanded. The best solution I've found is to use long form consistently throghout the article Seraphim System (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The short citations are not full sources for the readers to verify the claim. They need to be interlinked to the full citations or fixed another way. The short citations failed to verify the claims. QuackGuru (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are fine, you just don't understand how to read the short citations. In any event, this is an article talk page, which is not the right place to discuss how we use Bluebook in Wikipedia. GregJackP Boomer! 16:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We use short form with sfn template also - I use long form for citation to legal journals to make it easier for readers, so the URL to the article is included in the citation - but obviously not wanting to look up the full citation and failing verification are two separate issues. Seraphim System (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with short form citations. And yes, short form citations can verify claims. Readers do not look at single sentences in a vacuum; they can simply and easily take a look at the full citation in a previous footnote. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What we need, among other things, is a "citelaw" template that will default to Bluebook formatting. Wikipedia's "house style" doesn't have to be one size fits all, but it does get tricky to do Bluebook manually, which, I suspect, is part of the pushback. Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: we have bluebook web and bluebook journal already, which 99% of the time are are enough. For cases the SCOTUS template is great, but it leaves a space for the slip opinion - Bluebook templates are easy to set up though, because it is all mandatory. Seraphim System (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do? Where? It's not in the editing window dropdown... Montanabw(talk) 22:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: will post to your talk page to not clutter the article page. Seraphim System (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I reverted the removal of two external links per WP:ELYES, item 3. In these two cases, the links provide information that is not available in the article on the Bluebook style and both sites are maintained by law schools (Cornell Law and Suffolk Law School). GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There appears to be an information hole that opened up. The page currently discusses LegalEase and provides a link to it . . . though that link has been redirect to the McGraw Hill wikipedia page which makes no mention of LegalEase. What happened to LegalEase?--Steven 18:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordstevenbalogh (talk • contribs)

Redbook

This needs to be distinguished from Bryan A. Garner's Redbook. How do they complement each other? In what ways do they conflict? 24.23.163.55 (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't need to be distinguished. The Redbook is a writing guide, on how to write legal material. The Bluebook is a citation system, on how to reference material that you cite in your writing. They don't conflict at all. GregJackP Boomer! 03:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¶ I would like to point out that "the Yellow Book" - The California Style Manual - is the official style sheet for California courts, supervised by the California Supreme Court and published by West; is considerably easier that the Bluebook. So is "the Green Book" - the ALWD Citation Manual, published by the Association of Legal Writing Directors. The Bluebook was always intended for the editors of professionally published law reviews - those worked up with professional linotypes capable of a variety of typographic features such as italics, small capitals, superscripts, and other features that didn't exist on typewriters - and even now are cumbersome on word processors, so that adhering to the Bluebook rules was nearly impossible for students and practitioners prior to 1985, and has been very challengiing since then. The revisions of the Bluebook that are issued at five year intervals sometime show changes that seem to have been motivated simply for the same of making some sort of changes. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

The introduction has a long passage on variations that partly duplicates the section below it on Variations. The material in the introduction would more appropriately be moved to the section below it on Variations. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bluebook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bluebook"