Talk:Ultimate fact
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Capitalization[edit]
Is there a reason why this article is capitalized like this? Normal Wikipedia procedure is to use lowercase throught (except the first character) unless the article title is a proper noun; for example Common law. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, there is no reason and it has now been fixed. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
'Classic case' example seems like an editorial opinion[edit]
The entire last paragraph seems out of place. I searched for People v. Murphy, and the case that is referred to isn't even the first result among cases with that name. I also cannot find any scholarly source that explains why it is a 'classic case', or even any scholarly article that refers to the case at all.
In addition, the final paragraph seems disjoint with the article. It doesn't connect the facts of the case to the concept of ultimate fact in any way. I would recommend that the paragraph be removed, seeing as it doesn't provide any useful amplifying information related to the topic of the article, and there is no evidence that it is a 'classic case.' Danielmjohnston (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)