Talk:Supreme court

Law Top‑importance

	Law portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Daniel Nasaw (25 July 2012). "Meet the 'bots' that edit Wikipedia". BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 2012-07-28.

Archives

1

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Court system of Canada#Superior-level courts of the provinces and territories|supreme courts of several Canadian provinces/territories]] The anchor (Superior-level courts of the provinces and territories) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Adding Indonesia[edit]

Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world. Is there a specific process by which countries' supreme courts are selected for addition to the list, or would it be fine to just add Supreme Court of Indonesia? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir yes sir! MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But add some sources to the new section, please. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TJRC: I've added a few sources, but sourcing for the second paragraph (the one on the Supreme Court itself) is proving problematic. The sources in the main article are all print sources which I don't have access to. Do we have an exact site guideline on how to deal with sources accepted by default/silent consensus but which an editor hasn't verified? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that if it can't be supported, it shouldn't be added to the article. I would be hesitant to copy the references without being able to check them; mostly because I've seen many times where a statement is quite properly added with a reference; and then, over time, the statement becomes modified, or text is added after it, so that the reference no longer actually supports the statement that it abuts. I wouldn't want to carry that over to a second article.

Perhaps the best approach is to request a better cite in the other article; and not let it creep into here without verification. Not that there's anything wrong with having a print source as a cite; but if it can't be verified, it's difficult to re-use in another article.

Kudos for your work on this, BTW. TJRC (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my best, though I must admit that I'm still new to articles on law and legal figures. Following your advice, I'll leave those sources out for now and see what I can find either online or (crossing my fingers here) at my local library's Asian section. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited Sources[edit]

I have noticed a lot of information is uncited in this article. Please contribute to this article by citing sources to existing information or when adding new information. Uncited information cannot be proven may be deleted over time if not properly cited. Examples of uncited information include the paragraphs from the countries of South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. 12.227.66.34 (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the UK Supreme Court be moved to the "Mixed" jurisdiction category?[edit]

The UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for Scottish civil appeals, which are under the Scottish civil law system, not the English & Welsh common law system. At least, that's my understanding. But doesn't that mean it should be in the "Mixed jurisdiction" category, just like the Supreme Court of Canada, which also has jurisdiction over common law and civil law? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upper case "Supreme Court"?[edit]

It’s supposed to be Supreme Court not Supreme court — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeC1960 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No; it's not a proper noun referring to any particular court, so it's lower-cased. TJRC (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court of Los Angeles[edit]

Court date 216.70.154.55 (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Law suryiakaanth[edit]

saravanan kasinatan send jalied kajang court odre law rukun negara suryia act 2023 2001:E68:5431:8A26:85AB:7F55:8818:DAB5 (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New Voices[edit]

Epic generational changes and agents like civic police and extreme voices have gained access to moderate mind control techniques and deep seeded racism and anti semetic forces they make you say words you dont want. Also noted in police brutality and 911 call shut off. Their moderating powers to my destruction of property control devices they have empowered me. My apt destroyed broken bones and have controlled me in other self deprecating ways. Many times I have told on them, with no help they laugh to others naivity and ignorance. Dsapples5 (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]