WikiProject Law	(Rated Start-Class, High-importance)	LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlegal articles
Law portal v • d • e 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 project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

First paragraph is really about US civil procedure. To show how silly it could get if made POV, I have added England and Wales items. I would welcome some idea as to how to proceed with this. Not everywhere is the US and its wikipedia policy to reflect this. It would be nice if the legal articles weren't so POV, but I can't see how to avoid it without US articles being separated out and a shorter much more general article being put in their stead. Francis Davey 13:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what POV is, but if I understand the problem, I think it could be solved in part by simply adding "In the United States" to the beginning of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.127.192 (talk • contribs)

• POV ("point of view") means that it lacks a global point of view; for example, this article is centered on the American system of civil procedure, while the article on default judgment is exclusively English and Welsh in orientation. It would be nice to compare not only the British and American systems but also the Scottish, Canadian, Australian, and several not based on the English common system. Limiting it to one or two systems with a common heritage adds to the systemic bias that should be reduced as much as possible. 147.70.242.40 00:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Where's the res judicata 2 External Links 3 Dec 1, 2007 changes 4 'Civil procedure' accompanied with 'Civil procedure in U.S.' template?!

[edit] Where's the res judicata

The concepts of issue preclusion and claim preclusion are big civpro topics. John wesley 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

PeteMoss - How can you justify deleting sites with free information that is extremely specific to this topic and leave the following links? This site is for a law professor that has very few items actually dealing with civil proceudre - *Philip Larson's Law School Outlines Take a look at the actual paper this site points to. If you search the paper in Acrobat, you will find that the paper doesn't even have the term 'civil procedure' in it! *Uri Weiss, The Regressive Effect of Legal Uncertainty If this site isn't spam, seeing as they are simply selling their product, how can a site that gives away free information be spam?*O'Connor's Federal Rules * Civil Trials —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.45.176.248 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I totly agree with you. as a server myself, those sites post legit info. The other sites you got rid of were not relvent to topic. Thanx

75.45.176.248 - Neither site you added can be considered a reliable source for Federal and State codes. civilprocedure.info was created on 18-Mar-2007 and federalrulesofcivilprocedure.info was created on 12-Apr-2007. If you want to add links there are plenty of reliable sources for Federal and State codes, including .gov and .edu sites. Both of your sites also contain objectionable amounts of advertising. All of which goes against WP guidelines. Regarding the other links, I agree with you. PeetMoss 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

75.45.176.248 - Why did you remove a link to: *Complete text of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Cornell Univ.) and replace it with a link to a commercial site that was only created last month containing copies of the same text? What was wrong with the link to Cornell? PeetMoss 04:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

75.45.176.248 - I believe the debate is over on this. The following IP's, your's included, have been doing nothing but spamming civilprocedure.info, federalrulesofcivilprocedure.info, Search-For-Servers.com, QuickRepo.com, searchforpis.com. All domains are owned by the same company and all are interlinked. The first two domains were created in March and April of this year after a Search-For-Servers.com spam warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lawpro and after a debate over links to QuickRepo.com. A new IP that just appeared today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.45.216.239 , from the same block of IPs below, has been deleting links to Cornell's Rules of Federal Procedures that obviously competed with the link to federalrulesofcivilprocedure.info (which is an exact copy of the text contained on Cornell University's web site).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.45.176.248
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.45.221.9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.45.187.197
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lawpro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.45.207.156
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.46.126.165
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.45.219.199 (added 05-30-07)

PeetMoss 23:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Grade Again? Well PittMoss, I appreciate being affiliated with a company that I have nothing to do with. At least it is in Michigan. If you are such an expert, try doing a reverse IP on my IP. By doing so, you will see that I use SBC DSL. So, that must mean everyone in Michigan with SBC DSL must work for this company too?

75.45.216.239 - If you look, you'll see that WP's RIP link shows Texas and in good faith I never accused the company of being affiliated with you. I didn't know the IP's were in Michigan, before now. PeetMoss 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A reverse IP shows that 75.45.176.248 is in California, so I guess we never know where anyone really is.

If you look at my history, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.45.216.239, I didn't add links, I only deleted SPAM links. But maybe deleting is the same as adding in your mind?

75.45.216.239 - Yes, I've read the comments in your history. You made it clear, there and below, that your removal of the link to Cornell's Rules of Federal Procedures was an act of retaliation. Fortunately an editor saw what was going on and reverted your edits. PeetMoss 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It was because Cornell sells the same product, making it SPAM. I feel that you think you own these pages and thus, I did want to punish you. I'm sick of you and others doing this to Wikipedia.

People like you, those with a power complex that compel them to do things to make them feel powerful, such as deleting links and additions from others, makes you feel good doesn't it? I pity you. You really do need to find a new hobby. Were there actually any sites that linked to searchforpis.com as you say? Show me, as I can't find any. This must be why so many people feel Wikipedia is being overrun by 'editors', much the same as DMOZ has been. Pity, it seemed like such a good idea...

75.45.216.239 - The foundation that runs WP gets to set the rules on outbound links just like you do on any sites you may own. The sites you added do not allow anyone to post whatever links they like, and neither did the sites they lead into, all charge a fee for links. Why do you think one set of rules should apply to those sites and another to WP? PeetMoss 12:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for informing me of that logical information. It seems that you don't pay attention, as I never added links. I deleted them. Though, once again, that goes to say you actually look at and care what others do on here. It's okay for someone to do something, as long as you, King of WP, says it is okay. This is probably the last time I actually use Wikipedia for any sort of reference, as you and others have it made it quite clear that WP is for those people with nothing better to do than spread biased opinions and information that may or may not be accurate. Thanks!

75.45.216.239 - There is nothing biased about preferring a link to Cornell's legal database over a copy of the same thing just installed on a new commercial site that also has advertising and links to sites recently deleted from WP as spam. PeetMoss 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dec 1, 2007 changes

Repeating my comment on the FRCP page:
This is probably a larger undertaking than I have time for at present (hurray law school exams) but at some point soon the references to the FRCP should be updated to reflect the new "pain language" revisions that took effect Dec 1, 2007.
Nskoch (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Civil procedure' accompanied with 'Civil procedure in U.S.' template?!

Screamer says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.228.132 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I will add 'POV' template in regard to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. --89.142.227.110 (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)