Thanks for the note. Agreed that we shouldn’t interpret or “parse” legal arguments in Wikipedia’s voice—doing so runs afoul ofWP:OR andWP:SYNTH. For clarity, though,WP:PRIMARY does allow limited use of primary sources like briefs to support simple, descriptive facts (e.g., who filed, when they filed, the exact words quoted), while analysis, significance, and characterization should come from independent secondary sources perWP:SECONDARY andWP:RS.

Proposed approach for this article:

* Keep cites to briefs only where they verify non-analytic facts: “On 3 March 2025, X filed an amicus brief” or a short, attributed quote from the brief, with a pin cite. SeeWP:V andWP:PRIMARY.* Add/replace with reliable secondary coverage (e.g., law reviews, treatises, SCOTUSblog, major outlets) wherever we summarize or weigh arguments, to avoidWP:UNDUE andWP:OR.* Avoid using party or amici filings to establish contested propositions of law or fact about living persons; use court opinions and high-quality secondary sources instead (seeWP:BLP andWP:RS).

If you’re seeing places where a brief is being used for interpretation rather than straightforward verification, please flag with{{better source needed}} and we can swap in the appropriate secondary sources. This keeps the article precise (via the primary for “what/when/who/quoted text”) and neutral/encyclopedic (via secondary for “what it means/why it matters”).

IndyNotes (talk)15:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems. First is with amicus briefs, because we should not be picking and choosing ourselves which briefs to present as that otherwise is favoring sides. In the article, the lower court brief is included because third party sources highlighted it, and I know for other major cases, as we get closer to argue date, we'll see more sources likely outlining those briefs. Second is that broadly that even dissecting the basic arguments of any party's filing or brief is a matter of being knowledgeable in law, which purposely WP editors are not supposed to be. We rely on what other sources say and then summarize those. Now, if this is handled like the recent VRA case (and I see no doubt it will considered a high profile case), in the week ahead of the orals (that is, next week) we will see many sources come out with their analysis of their positions including major players in the amicus briefs. So this is more a situation to wait a bit more and sources will be there to help us summarize the arguments in the days ahead of the case, so we shouldn't try to get ahead of that. We have external links to the docket that a more curious reader can review to find these if they need yo see them.Masem (t)15:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 October 2025,In the news was updated with an item that involved the articleYang Chen-Ning, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on thecandidates page. —Bagumba (talk)07:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating for the record I have some trepidation about using images from that trailer, especially given the Brazilian Overwatch account'supload isn't under a free license. Even the main US uploadlacks the free license.Kung Fu Man (talk)13:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't like the idea that material that is clearly copyright in most countries, but posted by an office outlet in a different language is claimed to be CC. The page that is linked on the version of the trailer on Commons[1] does have the CC text on it, but not the version you have linked fro the OW brazil community.Masem (t)17:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I've raised the question over at the commons village pump on copyright questions.Masem (t)19:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new discussion on whether Aeroroutes is a reliable source, if you wanna join the discussion to mention on if its a reliable source feel free to do so, the discussion is atWP:RSN#WP:AEROROUTESMetrosfan (talk)07:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. While I'm still working on trying to getEmily Neves up to B-class or GA-class onTalk:Emily Neves#B-class/GA-class efforts, there are also two discussions on getting thePeanuts andCharles M. Schulz articles up for GA or FA over atTalk:Peanuts#GA/FA? andTalk:Charles M. Schulz#GA/FA plans, if you are interested in joining these discussions. Thanks,sjones23 (talk -contributions)07:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]