October 10

I have been searching forever for a painting (print) of a piece of art I saw when I was in Amsterdam. It is of a guardian/solider/sentinel on horseback, in the snow, and the most intense look in his eyes. Was thinking it was a Dutch painter, but not sure. Can anyone help me find this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.195.177 (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember where in Amsterdam you saw it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general how does the overall population of Parsippany, NJ view our rights as covered in the 1st and 2nd Amendments? Do they accept and welcome diverse cultures, and do they believe in our right to own and bare arm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.37.72 (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you're looking specifically at just this one city? If we knew your intentions, then it might be easier to answer. I doubt much data exists about such a specific portion of the overall US population. Dismas|^(talk) 03:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that Parsipanny is your home town. Your local newspapers may have polled citizens. Another thought is to focus on the state level by telephoning repeat First and Second Amendment players. The NJ ACLU handles these cases. The Federalist Society may be able to refer you to an advocacy group so the presentation is balanced. I'm not certain but pending litigation may be searched through Pacer. An obvious thought is that the Supreme Court routinely rules on these issues. Despite disagreement or even outrage, th75Janice (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)e Court orders are followed without the U.S. Army intervening. The Court has legitimacy.[reply]

Long ago I worked for the ACLU in New Jersey during college. Printed brochures were circulated detailing the Bill of Rights without formal designating it the "Bill of Rights." Most people queried were very opposed to the rights but when informed it was the Bill of Rights changed their mind. Perhaps you could replicate this sampling.75Janice (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)75Janice[reply]

What does "believe in our right to bear arms" mean? To begin, I'm assuming you didn't seriously mean to bare our arms. But back to the point, that they don't believe that we have a right (in that they are ignorant of the constitution) or that they don't recognize the authority of the constitution? If we have the right (which we do, largely), how can they not believe in it...do you mean in a sort of no-confidence kind of sentiment? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the OP but I took "believe in our right" to mean "agree with our right". Dismas|^(talk) 05:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any reason given as to why Kim Jong-il often wears sunglasses and why he often seems to be dressed more casually than those around him? Here's a pic of what I'm referring to: [1]. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 02:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North of the DMZ: essays on daily life in North Korea By Andreĭ Nikolaevich Lanʹkov says he either wears a military uniform or a Mao suit, and says of the latter that it's "stressing the austerity and quasi-military character of the regime". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 02:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunglasses are intimidating because they make it difficult to tell what a person is looking at. Either that or he doesn't like bright light. Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article says the sunglasses are Ray-Bans, but gives only a metaphorical explanation for them. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 02:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand if he were wearing a Mao suit all the time but what he's wearing in the example I gave, and what I see him in most often (confirmation bias?), is not a Mao suit. Or at least it doesn't look like it to me. There are no cargo pockets on the lower part of the jacket and the hem of the jacket is tighter (as if there was elastic in it) than I think Mao suits are. In fact, it reminds me of a Members Only jacket that was popular in the 80s. Dismas|^(talk) 07:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda looks like an Eisenhower jacket but its to conceal his bulletproof vest. In North Korea, they refer to it as the "people's outfit" and I believe its supposed to give the huddled masses that wear the same thing a connection to their Great Leader. 98.228.244.154 (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly happens when a U. S. Supreme Court ruling ends in a 4-4 tied decision, due to one justice not sitting on the case? Thanks. (64.252.1.135 (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Didn't we just have this question last week? From what I recall, in such a situation, the lower courts ruling stands. Dismas|^(talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. An order is entered stating that "the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court." The ruling resolves the issue for purposes of that case, but is not regarded as a precedent for other cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was really my question. Let's say that this case arises from, for example, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. If the case ended up before the U. S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided the case with a 4-4 tie ... then the 2nd Circuit ruling will stand. Are you saying that this ruling (the Supreme Court ruling, not the 2nd Circuit ruling) does not have precedent for the 2nd Circuit? Or that it does? And how about for the rest of the country ... does the Supreme Court ruling (not the 2nd Circuit ruling) set or not set precedent for the rest of the USA? Thanks! (64.252.1.135 (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

And if it's not a precedent (at least, say, outside the 2nd Circuit, NY, Ct & Vt), then should the 9th Circuit come to a different conclusion in a parallel case from California, I presume that the 9th Circuit would not be bound by the upholding (or non-reversal) of the 2nd Circuit's decision. If, however, the U.S. Supreme Court were to take up that 9th Circuit ruling (which I doubt they'd be eager to do unless Elana Kagan were able to vote, or else unless at least one other Justice had changed his or her mind) and again split 4-4, then I presume the 9th Circuit's decision would be upheld (not reversed) and remain precedent for that Circuit only — at least until either the 9th Circuit changes its own collective mind or until the Supreme Court is able and willing to resolve the diversity of law.—— Shakescene (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Shakescene ... that is (sort of) my whole point. The Supreme Court is deciding (specific) cases ... but not really deciding on any of the issues. So, the Supreme Court is the ultimate (supreme) arbiter ... yet, they are leaving the issue undecided and unresolved. They are neither clearly deciding it, nor setting precedents for the nation to follow. (In fact, in your scenario, the Supreme Court is encouraging / tolerating / allowing / advocating that different states approach the same exact federal issue in diametrically opposed ways!) In effect, their decision seems irrelevant and pointless. Is this really the way the system would work in such a circumstance? That does not seem to make much sense. Why would the Supreme Court go to all this trouble, just to render a pointless and meaningless decision that serves to not resolve the issue (and, in fact, serves to muddy the issue)? Am I missing something here? Thanks! (64.252.1.135 (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

When the Supreme Court first agreed to take up such a case (I'm speaking hypothetically here, since I'm not following the Court closely at the moment and have only a vague, general idea of what they've decided recently), it might well have been before the Court knew that a serving Solicitor-General of the United States would be nominated to join them, and thus while an expectation of a majority opinion was reasonable. Since the Court has historically declined to issue advisory opinions and insists on hearing real "

cases and controversies", i.e. real disputes that materially affect the lives, liberty, property, livelihood, dignity or family relations of real living people, then those specific people deserve to have their own specific case decided one way or the other, even if the effect on other such cases is limited. By the way, I'm not a lawyer; I have a paralegal degree from a two-year community college, but I'm no professional or scholarly legal authority, so I write here only as an interested amateur. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with everything you say ... except for one point. I would doubt very much that the Court justices give any consideration whatsoever to who will (or won't) hear the case and whether or not a majority opinion is reasonably expected. I think they just take whatever cases have merit ... and then let the chips fall where they may. Thanks. (64.252.1.135 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If the Court takes a case from the Second Circuit but then has to affirm because of an equal division, the Second Circuit opinion stands as precedent to the same extent as if the Supreme Court had never taken the case. In other word, it will be binding precedent in the Second Circuit, but only persuasive precedent in the Ninth Circuit. (A Supreme Court decision on the merits, of course, would be binding precedent throughout the whole country.)

I don't know the extent to which the Justices would decline altogether to take up an issue because they knew there would be a recusal, but they obviously prefer not to expend their limited time on a case where they wind up being unable to produce a precedential opinion where they avoid it. In many instances, the same question is presented to the Justices in more than one petition for certiorari pending at a time. In there are two petitions raising the same issue, but in Case A all nine Justices could participate while in Case B a Justice is recused, I think the Court would be more likely to grant cert. in Case A than Case B. Then, after the nine decide Case A, they will vote to remand the decision in Case B to the lower court "for further consideration in light of the decision in Case A." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad ... you seem to know a lot about this. So, this is where my confusion lies. Is there any distinction (or no distinction whatsoever) if the Supreme Court affirms the Second Circuit (in the normal and usual way) versus if the Supreme Court "affirms" the Second Circuit via a 4-4 decision? Let's say, under Scenario A, the Supreme Court takes the case from the Second Circuit and affirms it (by whatever vote ... let's just say 9-0). Under Scenario B, the Supreme Court "affirms" (or lets stand) the Second Circuit decision with the Supreme's vote of 4-4 (tie). Does the effect of an "affirm" in Scenario A differ from the effect of an "affirm" in Scenario B? From reading your last post above, it seems like Scenario A would set precedent for the USA, while Scenario B would only set precedent for the states of the Second Circuit. Or am I mis-reading you? To me, I would have assumed that an affirm is an affirm is an affirm, regardless of the number of votes counted. Are there some types of separate rules for affirms in a 4-4 tie vote versus any other type of affirming opinion? Thanks! (64.252.1.135 (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

An affirmance by a tie vote ("an equally divided court") is totally different from any other kind of affirmance. In the tie vote situation, the Court is saying "we can't decide the case, so the lower court's decision will stand since we haven't overturned it, but we aren't really deciding anything." Basically the effect is the same as if the case had never been taken to the Supreme Court in the first place.

(Incidentally, the same rules usually applies when the Supreme Court is required to affirm for want of a quorum, which occurs if at least 6 Justices are not available to participate in a case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now it all makes sense. It (a 4-4 tie) is not really an "affirmance" in the normal sense of the word. Thanks. (64.252.1.135 (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the above input. It was very helpful. Thank you. (64.252.1.135 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Does anybody know how and where I can get higher resolution copies or scans of the images here? [2]

Also, can anybody post translations for me? I need an image depicting the Wuchang Uprising in particular. I think print 11 says "Wuchang" on the city gate but I am not sure. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The city gate in print 11 says 武昌城 "Wuchang [city] wall". Steewi (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are prepayments treated in cash basis accounting? Say you have a recurring expense that is paid on July 1 every three years, and a prepayment covering 7/1/2008 - 6/30/2011 was paid in 2008. Should the prepayment be recognized as an expense in 2008? In 2011? Or should it be allocated over several years on a pro rata basis? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.146.193 (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only in

Accruals accounting would you allocate it over several years on a pro-rata basis. In cash accounting, the entire expense was in 2008, with nothing in 2009 or 2010. Dbfirs 07:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Julian UK 87.82.79.175 (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. Certainly people can be disciplined for behaviour outside work that brings a company into disrepute, constitutes discrimination or harassment against another employee, etc. but probably an email between two employees only just saying that one did not like working at the place would not warrant disciplinary action. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your last point, it would definitely make a difference. In most US states for example, there are usually few legal restrictions on what you can be fired for (see At-will employment). In more general terms, plenty of people have been fired for postings to social networking sites in various countries, quite of them postings while they were not at work. [3] These are semi-public so are likely to be seen and more likely to be a problem but as Q Chris has said, it's likely to be possible private emails could be a problem, particularly if sent to a colleague. To use an obvious example, if you repeatedly harass a colleague outside work, e.g. call them a fag who is going to go to hell or a chink who should go back to China or other extreme nonsense like that, there's a fair chance in a number of jurisdictions whoever you work for could in fact get in to trouble if they are informed but fail to take some sort of action, no matter how good you behave at work. Similarly, if you repeatedly email your boss telling them how stupid, incompetent and lazy they are with plenty of expletives etc, it's seems unlike you'll survive long in your job (unless it's in good jest and understood that way) even if you're highly professional at work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting. Thank you. I was wondering if Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life (EU convention on human rights)

1.Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. and Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Could be called into play? Julian 87.82.79.175 (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're stepping onto legal advice ground here, and (if this is a real case and not a hypothetical one) you need proper advice from a real lawyer rather than from random people with inadequate background information speculating on the internet. All I would observe is that if B has complained to the boss about personal emails received from A, dropping A in it in the process by revealing his/her dislike of his job, it's a safe bet that B sees A's emails as unwelcome and no more should be sent. This type of situation usually has a history and is more complex than it appears. The answer is almost certainly "It depends on various factors including A's contract terms and length of service; the exact wording of the criticism of the firm in the email, who (if anyone) was named in it and who has seen it; the content of A's emails to B and the history of their relationship; any previous incidents of this kind during A's employment with the firm; whether or not A's boss is looking for an excuse to get rid of him/her; and probably some others too." If I were A, I would consult a specialist in employment law, via my union if I was a member of one. Karenjc 13:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is hypothetical. I am working on a presentation for staff and thought there might be some clear cut boundaries. From the feedback so far it seems to be don't even mention work, talk to other colleagues and such like! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The law (constitutional, statutory, employment, regulatory and case-by-case) just seems to be very different in the U.S., the fifty states and half-dozen other jurisdictions of the U.S., the European Union, the U.K. specifically, and for that matter, Ireland, Canada and Australia. (The different positions and policies of trade unions in different jurisdictions can also have a direct effect or indirect influence.) This point in itself is probably well worth making in your presentation, unless it's very specifically focussed. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Q Chris and Karenjc - it depends on the circumstances. The questioner may be interested in this. Bear in mind also that comments made on public or semi-public sites like Facebook are likely to be dealt with in a different way to person-to-person emails or conversations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several events of this type associated with

International Burn a Koran Day

, including one in New Jersey and one in Australia. These things are always surrounded by great controversy and they always end up with the worker screwed. Even if the worker filed suit and won in court, he'd only end up being blacklisted for the attempt.

A more serious problem for the company might come up if the worker submits useful personal e-mail, such as content for a company sign or ad campaign, since a small physically oriented company might not have thought about IP issues in its contracts. Wnt (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've read both

One cannot predict the future. These territories now have a grater degree of self determination. It will depend on how well they are able to pull their own weight. Good luck to them. I notice the airwaves are very busy with 'hams' trying to make radio contact with them. Oh, don't they know, you can just call them up on a mobile these days.--Aspro (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we can't predict the future; that's why I said "assuming that all goes as planned". I don't understand what's currently being planned. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to the Netherlands Antilles national football team? Do their team members become members of the Netherlands national football team? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They need only to ask Angela Merkel to move the goal posts for them and then it doesn't matter what they do!--Aspro (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From reading all of the relevent articles, it looks like Curacao and St. Martin will have the same status individually as the Netherlands Antilles did as a whole before the dissolution; that is they become constituent countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which seems to be much the same relationship that, say, Scotland has with the U.K. The remaining islands appear to be organized much as the French organize their

Overseas department, which is to say they are now integral parts of the Netherlands (that is, now part of the European Netherlands), excepting for a few issues whereby they are allowed to have differences, (for example, to use the Dollar locally instead of the Euro). --Jayron32 03:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Related to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman_request_for_comment and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Newspaper_article_about_overturn_of_a_conviction

A man named Lester Coleman entered a guilty plea in a perjury trial and received a sentence and a fine.

A British newspaper reported that his conviction had been overturned: "Court clears Lockerbie claim agent, Marcello Mega, The Sunday Times, 13 June 1999, Scotland News 6" It stated:

"A FORMER American intelligence officer convicted of perjury after

alleging United States complicity in the Lockerbie bombing has been

cleared by a court of appeal.

Lester Coleman, who was convicted of perjury last year, had the verdict

overturned last month. He is living with his wife and three children in

Kentucky and in the past few days has launched an action for $10m

against the American government.

Three judges issued a sealed ruling, an unusual step which means that

not even Coleman and his lawyers can read why they quashed his

conviction. Reporting restrictions also ensured the case received little

attention in the United States."http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/lestercoleman.html

I cannot find any other newspapers, American or British, that talk about his conviction being overturned.

The article does exist, because http://www.newsint-archive.co.uk/pages/free.asp is the database, and the article can be found if you input the following:

I set the search times from 1 May 1999 to 1 August 1999.

"Lockerbie" is the search term

So, where can I find a US government record that this conviction was overturned and that the ruling was sealed? I find it unusual that this is the only newspaper article that talked about his conviction being overturned. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for the author of that story, Marcello Mega, indicates that he has something of a fondness for fringe theories concerning the Lockerbie incident, as in this story. Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so that seems to be his point of view. The author believes in the conspiracy.

The question of whether the conviction was reversed or not would be a factual question. I find it unlikely that such a conviction would actually be reversed if there isn't a single American newspaper and if there are no other British newspapers reporting on it. I want to know where I should look in order to check whether Mega's statements are correct.

Anyway I referred to this thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman_request_for_comment

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I found an article on the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"EX-FEDERAL AGENT SENTENCED FOR CHECK FRAUD TERM IS PROBATED BUT DEFENDANT ALSO FACES U.S. PERJURY CONVICTION." Lexington Herald-Leader. April 11, 2000. - This says that his perjury conviction was still in effect, and "He will be transferred to federal custody because he is wanted for parole violations" - This also answers the question of why he was released in 2000.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is more information on this story on this old Geocities web page: Lester Coleman - from agent to outcast. The section titled Les Coleman wins Lockerbie appeal states the following details: In a 3-0 decision a 3 judge panel at the

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on May 4, 1999 that chief judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Thomas C. Platt violated the civil rights of defendant, Lester Coleman. This should give something to search for. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, so that's Lester Coleman's family's website. It by itself can't be used as an RS, but I used the info on it to see what else I can find. I'll see what "Coleman" and "Platt" brings up. The Lexington Herald said that Coleman faced a "U.S. perjury conviction," so a perjury conviction was in effect in 2000. His conviction occurred by May 16, 1998, so I am going to search between that date and 01/01/2001 to see if I can find any more info. Also it's usually rare for someone who enters a plea agreement to sue for an appeal later. I'm not sure about the success rate on that. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google News found a few articles related to his sentence, and it found "LOCKERBIE: THE SECRET EVIDENCE." from the Sunday Herald. I already made a talk page post about "The Secret Evidence" at Talk:Pan_Am_Flight_103#Is_this_an_editorial.3F_-_and_Juval_Aviv WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the page and see if any of it could be used as an RS or if any of it originates from an RS. Speaking of publication bans, I just got a source that will verify the claim that they are very rare in the US. Lemme add it to the page. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added "Brian Cathcart of The Independent stated that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "ensures that the media enjoy great latitude in the coverage of criminal investigations and trials.""

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reporting on of "criminal investigations and trials" is greatly restricted in the UK. This case however is not about criminal investigations but about national security! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Coleman's trial seems to be purely based on criminal law; i.e. perjury and passport forging. It doesn't seem like the feds made any justifications based on national security. The trial Coleman participated in was a civil suit based on compensation, and the criminal trial stems from his actions in that civil suit. The feds didn't say "Coleman's a suspected terrorist" or anything like that. The penalties levied against Coleman seem like small potatoes (compared to terrorists who get life sentences in ADX Florence) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I meant. The

Lockerbie bombing is an issue of national security. Therefore you cannot take anything anyone says on the issue at face value, least of all any branch – including the juridical – of the US government. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

In that case you would describe allegations pressed by the national government in the same manner that the articles about 9/11 or Oklahoma City do so. It's a matter of describing what happened.

Plus I am not aware of other cases where the US government has successfully used press restrictions to stifle information in that manner. New York Times Co. v. United States ruled that an attempted publication ban from Richard Nixon about Watergate was not constitutional. The Wikipedia article says "The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment did protect the New York Times' right to print said materials."

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation was totally different, The New York Times had the information. In this case we are dealing with an alleged sealed ruling, so no newspaper knows it exist or what its content may be. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of a sealed ruling is that no record is available that it even exists. The existence is only known if the ruling is somehow leaked. This becomes ever more clear from the Google search for "sealed ruling". The 20 first search results are about a sealed ruling in the

US intelligence community

.

• Bill Conroy (September 7, 2004). "DEA Agent's Whistleblower Case Exposes the "War on Drugs" as a "War of Pretense"".
  The Narco News Bulletin
  . Retrieved 2010-11-10.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if every single US newspaper could not cover the story or decided not to cover the story, there are also Canadian, British, Australian, etc. etc. newspapers.

Remember that

Verifiability

, not truth, is the criterion for inclusion. If it cannot be verified for certain that the ruling was sealed, then we cannot say with certainty that the ruling was sealed.

As for Narco News, I don't think it has ever been analyzed on the

Wikipedia:RS noticeboard

before.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Newspaper_article_about_overturn_of_a_conviction has an inquiry from a user about the supposed overturning. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that there is, from a legal perspective, a HUGE difference between enjoining publication of the press (very hard to do under US law because of the First Amendment) vs. the release of court documents (something that is more common, though it is usually not the ruling that is sealed, but evidence and depositions often are). In general the US government (especially the courts and Congress, less so the Executive Branch) has lots of methods and legal recourse to keep internal secrets, but very limited powers to regulate information outside of the government. These are legally very different scenarios and should not be confused. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]