Talk:Citizen grand jury

United States: Government Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

The first sentence under the subheading "9/11 citizen grand juries" is very long and confusing if you don't read it more than once. Try editing it so that the entire section can flow better! Lippmare (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence made less run-on. You could have done that yourself, you know. PhGustaf (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to work on improving this page, however it is difficult due to the speculative information/sources that it deals with. If anyone has any suggestions on anything else to add it would be appreciated. Thanks, Burkeew (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask if you are confusing the common Grand jury with the attempted conspiracy theory tool Citizen grand jury? Because the sources you have tried to use refer to the former(this time), while the attempt last time referenced the latter. There is a big difference between the two. Dave Dial (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dave, There is no where that mentions the actual term citizen grand jury. It is given rise from the interpretation of the fifth amendments use of Grand Jury. In order to add information, one must continue off of this interpretation. The Supreme Court cases that I posted are clearly referring to it to be interpretted as a citizen's jury, which is the reason it was mentioned in the first place. How are you supposed to add information to a speculative concept without drawing these connections? Appreciate the help. Burkeew (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if there isn't any place that mentions it or not for sure. But if there isn't, then the article shouldn't exist. I had already nominated it for that. Evidently, there are sources that refer to this as a tool used by conspiracy theorists, but little(if any) else. Sorry. Dave Dial (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should exist because this has become a real movement. Perhaps you should research a concept before you undo someone's work. As I said, the concept is referred to often, such as the supreme court cases that I blockquoted. There is no legal document that specifically says "this is what a citizen grand jury" is. The concept exists because the fifth amendment did not specify if a grand jury is only for government purposes or if the people have the power to utilize it also. Because of the vagueness, people are using the idea of a people's jury to indict corrupt government actions. It is not to be brushed off as a "conspiracy theorist tool" simply because it counteracts a government. I don't understand how two Supreme court justices directly referring to it is not a reliable source for it's existence. If the Supreme Court acknowledges it and reinforces the idea that it is equally useable by the people and the government, then the concept exists in my opinion. Therefore, the only way to add information to a page about this is to draw claims from such documents. Burkeew (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh..Nowhere in either instance you were quoting do they refer to a "Citizen grand jury", they are refering to an actual Grand jury. You cannot cite "real movement"s without reliable sources, and then attempt to instruct me to research a "concept", which is what Wikipedia is not. You are not only doing original research, but pushing far beyond the bounds of synthesis. You should, at the very least, read those Wikipedia guidelines before you attempt further edits to this article. Dave Dial (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, there is no direct reference to a "Citizen grand jury" because "citizen" is a recent addition to "grand jury". The "citizen" aspect was added to incorporate the concept of a people's grand jury. The concept of a "citizen's grand jury" is clearly mentioned in the supreme court cases.

"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action." "…The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day."

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."

"Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length."

This is not a promotion for anything. The mentions of the concept of a peoples grand jury predate the term "citizen grand jury" so you're not going to find any "reliable sources" mentioning it. If we are incapable of making these logical connections to sources where it is clearly referenced, then you will not be able to add any information to this page. That is a shame because this is, in fact, a real term used to describe a real concept. I've read the quidelines. The point is that not everything is black and white. The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information. There is information available for this concept and it will be continuously withheld because it does not fit the status quo of a perfect wikipedia article.

Furthermore, how am I supposed to describe the history of the concept if I cannot make the connection that it is a species of Grand Jury, which it clearly is? Burkeew (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not trying to make your assignment harder than it should be, but you chose the article. You can't connect the lines based on your own assumptions that are not reliably sourced. I can see sources indicating the USSC referring to Grand juries, but not the "concept" of what this article is referring to. You must have reliable sources stating that, or making that claim, and not proclaiming it yourself or through unreliable sources. Good luck. Dave Dial (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My assignment has nothing to do with the situation. I'm not connecting the lines based on my assumptions. A citizens grand jury is from the mention of Grand Jury...the two are connected plain and simple. There are no "reliable sources" mentioning citizen grand jury as I have mentioned several times.

"and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action"

"serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."

These to excerpts from the case are the definition of a Citizen Grand Jury. This would be a direct reference to the concept behind the term "Citizen Grand Jury". You can't get any closer than that without actually using the term itself. What more do you want? It is painfully clear that they are not referring to the typical definition of a Grand Jury.

It is not outlandish to draw the logical connection from the obvious references that were being made in the court cases and my sources. All sources referring to the term directly are going to be people's opinion on it which are unreliable sources. When tracing the history, you must look at how it has come about...which is what I was attempting to convey. No "reliable source" exists to show something like that directly when the term itself has been around for only a few years. You must asses the mentions of the concept of the term and not simply the term itself. You are preventing the progress of this article and thus the progress of the spread of information for an elementary reason. But hey, I guess this is about A articles and not sharing information. Cheers. Burkeew (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I think it may simply be your goal to prevent the progression of this article. Anything that is anti-government is frightening to political enthusiasts who somehow fail to see the flaws with our government. Since when did a people's system of checks and balances become a conspiracy. You have no grounds to submit an article that is conveying a real idea for deletion. Your proclaimed interest in politics seems to be the only motivation here for the articles removal. Burkeew (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]