Talk:Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013)

Feedback

Hello, Tamzin. I read through it. It's good work! Again, I'm really not used to grading quality by Wikipedia's criteria, so I'm only going to raise it to C-class. Maybe someone else in WP:SCOTUS would be a better judge. You can ask for more eyes on their talk page, for sure.

I find myself wondering what this house looked like so, a picture of it would be a good addition if one exists. I'm also left wondering if this case has been cited in other major cases. The law professors' prognostication is all well and good, but it's been 9 years. How have admiralty courts actually responded to this ruling that changed how they're supposed to determine what a vessel even is?

The main thing I would say is that the way you have structured the references is unusual. IMHO, almost none of these sources is long enough to justify specifying specific pages. Nor are they referenced often rough to justify the {{Rp}} page numbering that interrupts the text. For example, I agree that ...are vessels under admiralty law,[15]: 977  but less so in other regards.[15]: 995 needs two citations, but relying on the reader to follow the link and go to those page numbers makes that statement too vague for Wikipedia. I think it would be better to either introduce both of the arguments you're referring to in the text and use a page-number-free citation, or to use two citations pointing to that source which quote the arguments you're referring to in the ref. lethargilistic (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lethargilistic:

1. The opinion includes a picture of the floating home, which can be seen in File:Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013).pdf on page 19, but since SCOTUS doesn't have to worry about silly things like copyrights, they don't actually say where they got the picture. As such I'm treating it as de minimis usage of copyrighted material as far as its inclusion in the PDF is concerned, and thus inappropriate to crop and use an image of its own. But, fear not! I anticipated this a while ago and reached out to Lozman, who he says he has images he can CC-license. (And he himself isn't sure who actually owns the copyright to the picture in the opinion.) So I should be able to get that uploaded soon, just have to touch base with him.
2. I agree that the impact section should say more than those law review articles. That and the opinion section are the two I most feel are incomplete. Will take a stab at that sometime soon. Probably once I'm done with my overhaul of... drumroll... Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018).
3. Generally I try to cite page numbers for anything long enough to have multiple parts. But I'll concede the {{rp}}s may not have turned out as I'd hoped. Annoyingly, Extension:Cite really doesn't give any option for citing multiple pages of the same source that doesn't have a major downside: {{rp}} takes up space in the body, {{sfn}}s risk confusing readers as to what the sources are and are hard to maintain for editors unfamiliar with them, and both {{sfn}}s and the Bluebook-esque approach of full citation first/short citation later have the problem of making an article look like it's citing more sources than it is. But I've got an idea of how to convert this to that last approach without going too overboard (like some legal articles one sees with 20 "Doe, p. 3", "Doe, p. 4", etc. cites). Will try, and we'll see how it looks. (On the note of citations, by the way, I've held off on moving the {{cite news}} cites over to {{bluebook website}} for reasons explained at Template talk:Bluebook website. Thoughts welcome there.)

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Lethargilistic: Okay, refs should now be more standard. Thanks for the edits. Can I ask, though, about the removal of "thought to be the only person to bring two unrelated cases before the Supreme Court"? The cited article cites Pamela S. Karlan who, while perhaps biased in this case, would also generally be considered a reliable commentator on the topic of Supreme Court litigants. It's not an airtight citation, which is why I didn't put the claim in the encyclopedia's voice, but I also don't see a claim to the contrary anywhere. But you're saying it's "Strictly incorrect"; can you elaborate? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I know of an explicit counterexample who had even more cases at the Supreme Court. Gene Buck was the appellant in Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co. and Buck v. Gallagher, which means he's tied with Lozman by default. Furthermore, he was the respondent in Watson v. Buck, Gibbs v. Buck, and Marsh v. Buck. Most of these had to do with whether or not the practices of ASCAP were legal under copyright and antitrust law. (And IMO the Court did several awkward Motivated Reasonings to decide them in ASCAP's favor, but that's neither here nor there.) The lawyer was just wrong. It happens. lethargilistic (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013)
• Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018)

)

Fane Lozman's arrest in 2006

• ... that "That Certain Unnamed Gray, Two-Story Vessel Approximately Fifty-Seven Feet in Length" took Fane Lozman to the US Supreme Court once, and an allegedly retaliatory arrest (pictured) took him there again? Source: Jesse D. H. Snyder, What Fane Lozman Can Teach Us About Free Speech, 19 Wyo. L. Rev. 419 (2019).
  • ALT1: ... that Fane Lozman, a "persistent gadfly", took Riviera Beach to the US Supreme Court once in 2013 for seizing his floating home and again in 2018 for arresting him (pictured), and won both times? Source: see above; also "persistent gadfly" per NYT
  • Comment: 2013 one was mainspaced in the past 7 days. 2018 one was 5X'd in the past 7 days. I'd like to do at least some work on the Lozman article in the near future, so it might make sense to hold this for a bit; but submitting now, now that these two are both in presentable states.

Moved to mainspace by Tamzin (talk). Self-nominated at 22:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Both articles are DYK eligible, one as a userspace draft moved to mainspace and the other as a 5x expansion. Lozman's article is too long for a 5x expansion, but could be a GA DYK in the future with work. Both articles are long and sourced throughout, with at least one citation per paragraph. AGF on the court filings used as inline references. They appear to be written neutrally. One minor issue that I won't hold up approval for is The case was noted for in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2013 article lead, please change that per MOS:NOTED. ALT0 reads a little clumsy to me, and is also slightly above the max 200 characters. I prefer ALT1. The video is tagged as PD based on Florida statutes. User has one DYK credit, so this nom is exempt from QPQ review requirement. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu: Thanks. I thought that MOS:NOTED applied to "noted that"-type constructions? To me "X was noted for" is shorthand for "observers took note of X for"... but I can switch to that expanded form if you'd like. Also, is ALT0 over the max? The submit script had it at 198 I think. I ask only because I think including the rather silly "name" of the not-vessel makes for a hookier hook. But ALT1 is definitely fine too. As to Lozman's article, yeah, I'd like to get that to GA at some point, but don't think I have the time now, sadly, so best to go ahead. If I do get some burst of energy to do that before this is promoted, I'll drop a note here and maybe we can work something out. Also, one more note: It was pointed out on the 2013 case's talk page that a picture of the floating home would help with the article, and I agree. Sadly, the picture used in the SCOTUS decision is unclear as to its provenance, and since SCOTUS has absolutely immunity from lawsuits there's no reason to think it's public domain or freely licensed. I reached out to Lozman in January and he agreed in principle to license some photos of it compatibly, but didn't reply to my most recent email about sorting that out... I'll give him a nudge, and hopefully we can manage that before this is promoted, but I guess we'll have to see. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Image

It would be very neat if an image of the house boat could be added to the article, even if its an external image. It would add a lot of context to the article. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)