This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
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 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.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
It looks like User:Wikidea improperly tried to expand this article in April 2013 by dumping in a very rough bullet-point outline of antitrust case law which is (1) difficult to read and (2) does not comply with the Manual of Style. The correct way to write about the law is to write in prose and then cite in footnotes to relevant cases, statutes, treatises, or law review articles.
It's been almost ten years. The test of time has demonstrated that no one has the time, energy, interest, or passion to fix this mess. Anyone who litigates antitrust law regularly enough to develop a deep understanding of the subject (which would not include me) is too busy working for their paying clients or polishing their next law review article to clean up this train wreck.
Any objections before I take out the trash? I propose to excise all the bullet-point garbage and pare this article back down to readable prose sections. Then hopefully people who actually know this area of law can expand from there. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the right move. I might do a little work on the article once you cut back all the overgrowth. I only ever rewrote the History section. The rest was too overwhelming. White Whirlwind 03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
