This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sines v. Kessler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
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 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
As it's related to the judgement, I've been updating the Richard B. Spencer based on info that's been going into here but specific to Spencer. Hope that's OK? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: tagging here because it's convenient. I added a statement from Spencer on his page, stating that he was planning on appealing the verdict. Should we add the same here or is it obvious/WP:MANDY territory? Source for that would be the AP News piece. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: On your first comment, seems reasonable to update articles on related individuals. I have some adjacent articles I plan to update as well, though I have a Thanksgiving pie getting in my way a bit
Regarding whether to include Spencer's plan to appeal, I've included a sentence about how the plaintiff's lawyers intend to retry the federal conspiracy charges, so it seems reasonable include plans to appeal if that remains in the page. That said, if we want to omit any statements about what people involved with the trial plan to do, and wait to add things if and when they are formally appealed/retried, I'd be fine with that too. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat in favour of saying that he plans to appeal, as it's one of the few reactions we have at this point. At least until more fleshed out legal analyses get published over the coming hours/days. It'd be difficult though if multiple of the defendants state the same intent, as given the sheer number that could get wordy. That said, I'm more familiar with UK legal proceedings than US as I live in the UK, so I'm not entirely sure if he has grounds to appeal or not. Or if that's even a even a concept in American legal practice. I'll add it for now, but I don't have strong feelings if it gets removed or amended later.
