This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.
A fact from Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 July 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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 Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The passage about USA Senator Blumenthal was badly formatted, and intended to blow up an exaggeration on his part into a "lie" by omitting details of his exaggeration. Furthermore, the passage mentioned that Blumenthal used the phrase when questioning Judge Brett Kavanaugh while ignoring the multiple provable bald-faced lies told by Judge Kavanaugh--apparently for partisan reasons on the part of the editor. I cut the whole thing as overly partisan and distorted. I didn't try have to find a way to present that digression in a balanced way, because at this time it appears to be merely a bit of current political nonsense and inappropriate here. Ventifax (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I guess the above comment is about 73.227.20.10's edits. I trimmed and wikified it a bit, but the episode seems to contribute very little to the understanding of the subject, except for its curio value that is has been mentioned at all – truly trivial. I don't think the article would lose anything if the sentence were removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
