wikidump-infobox-extractor 1.2.0

Wikidump infobox extractor.

Extract infoboxes from wikidumps

To create a wikidump for a specific category or group of articles, you can use Wikipedia's special export feature.

Download the .xml file and then you can convert the xml dump to a .js file containing a list of infobox objects. The package is able to handle a variety of infoboxes and can correctly parse lists within infoboxes such as:

| Holding           = {{ordered list |style=text-align: left;
    |1=States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state for acts performed outside the state.
    |2=States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state by written communication, even if the property to be insured is within the state.
    }}

The package can also handle multiline items (below will be handled as one element):

    |Prior=Patent application 07/479,666 filed, February 13, 1990;
    Examiner's rejection affirmed by Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, ''Ex parte Zurko, et al'', July 31, 1995 (_ USPQ 2d _, Appeal No. 94-3967);
    request for reconsideration denied, December 1, 1995;
    Board decision reversed, ''In re Zurko, et al'' 111 [[F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/111/887/630610/ 887] ([[Fed. Cir.]] 1997);
    reheard, Board decision reversed, 142 [[F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/142/1447/506854/ 1447] (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc);
    petition for writ of certiorari granted, {{ussc|525|961|1998|el=no}}

It is also handled when infobox elements are on the same line as the infobox declaration:

{{infobox| above       = Arizona v. California

Finally, infoboxes are matched regardless of proper spelling or capitalization (nfobox, Infobox, infobox) are all matched.

Installation

$ pip3 install wikidump-infobox-extractor

Usage

$ infodump <xml dump file path> <output file path>

Notes

Wikidumps and Wikipedia pages have a lot of errors. This package does a pretty good job of dealing with them. However, you will likely need to do some key correction after the parse. Spelling, capitalization, and relevance all need to be analyzed.

For instance, below are all the keys from Wikipedia's Supreme Court Cases (after I manually edited some pages on Wikipedia to remove non-Supreme Court Cases):

If you wish to check your processed infoboxes, you can do something such as:

import json

f = open("./wiki-dump-out.js", 'r')
case_dict = json.loads(f.read())
f.close()

keys = set()
for obj in case_dict:
    for key in obj:
        keys.add(key)

for key in sorted(keys):
    print(key)

Keys from Wikipedia's Supreme Court Cases

Abrogated
Advocates for Appellant
Advocates for Appellee
ArgueDate
ArgueDate1
ArgueDate2
ArgueDateA
ArgueDateB
ArgueDateC
ArgueYear
Argument
Claim
Concur
Concurrence
Concurrence/Dissent
Concurrence/Dissent2
Concurrence/Dissent3
Concurrence/Dissent4
Concurrence/Dissent5
Concurrence2
Concurrence3
Concurrence4
Concurrence5
Concurrence6
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Dissent2
Dissent3
Dissent4
Docket
Docket2
Docket3
FiledDate
FiledYear
FullName
Fullname
Holding
JoinConcurrence
JoinConcurrence/Dissent
JoinConcurrence/Dissent2
JoinConcurrence/Dissent3
JoinConcurrence/Dissent4
JoinConcurrence/Dissent5
JoinConcurrence2
JoinConcurrence3
JoinConcurrence4
JoinConcurrence5
JoinConcurrence6
JoinDissent
JoinDissent2
JoinDissent3
JoinDissent4
JoinMajority
JoinMajority2
JoinMajority3
JoinPlurality
JoinPlurality2
LawsApplied
Limited
Litigants
Litigants2
Litigants3
Majority
Majority2
Majority3
NotParticipating
Opinion
OpinionAnnouncement
Oral Argument
OralArgument
OralArguments
OralReargument
Outcome
Overruled
Overturned previous case
ParallelCitations
Parties
PerCuriam
PetitionDate
PetitionYear
Plurality
Plurality2
Prior
Procedural
QuestionsPresented
QuestionsPresnted
ReargueDate
ReargueDate2
ReargueDateA
ReargueDateA2
ReargueDateB
ReargueDateB2
ReargueYear
ReargueYear2
Related
SCOTUS
Seriatim
Seriatim2
Seriatim3
Seriatim4
SubmitDate
SubmitYear
Subsequent
Superseded
USPage
USVol
Vote
above
abovestyle
bodystyle
caption
citations
court
data11
data13
data15
data2
data23
data24
data25
data26
data27
data3
data3class
data4
data5
data6
data7
data8
data9
data9class
date decided
full name
header1
header10
header12
header14
header2
header3
header4
header5
header6
header7
header8
header9
headerstyle
image
italic title
judges
label2
label23
label24
label25
label26
label27
label3
label4
label5
label6
label7
label8
label9
name
opinions
prior actions
subsequent actions
title

Example

xml input:

<mediawiki xmlns="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10/ http://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10.xsd" version="0.10" xml:lang="en">
  <siteinfo>
    // ...
  </siteinfo>
  <page>
    <title>Younger v. Harris</title>
    <ns>0</ns>
    <id>1712852</id>
    <revision>
      <id>881592324</id>
      <parentid>877923066</parentid>
      <timestamp>2019-02-03T16:14:22Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Legalskeptic</username>
        <id>11540368</id>
      </contributor>
      <comment>added link to district court opinion</comment>
      <model>wikitext</model>
      <format>text/x-wiki</format>
      <text xml:space="preserve" bytes="6017">{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Younger v. Harris
  |ArgueDate=April 1
  |ArgueYear=1969
  |ReargueDate=April 29
  |ReargueYear=1970
  |ReargueDate2=November 16
  |ReargueYear2=1970
  |DecideDate=February 23
  |DecideYear=1971
  |FullName=Evelle J. Younger, District Attorney of Los Angeles County v. John Harris, Jr., Jim Dan, Diane Hirsch, and Farrel Broslawsky
  |USVol=401
  |USPage=37
  |ParallelCitations=91 S. Ct. 746; 27 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 669; 1971 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 136
  |Prior=Judgment for plaintiffs, 281 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/281/507/1575355/ 507] ([[United States District Court for the Central District of California|C.D. Cal.]] 1968)
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=The possible unconstitutionality of a state statute is not grounds for a federal court to enjoin state court criminal proceedings brought pursuant to that statute.  District Court for the Central District of California reversed and remanded.
  |SCOTUS=1970-1971
  |Majority=Black
  |JoinMajority=Burger, Harlan, Stewart, Blackmun
  |Concurrence=Stewart
  |JoinConcurrence=Harlan
  |Concurrence2=Brennan
  |JoinConcurrence2=White, Marshall
  |Dissent=Douglas
  |LawsApplied={{UnitedStatesCode|28|2283}}
}}
'''''Younger v. Harris''''', 401 U.S. 37 (1971),{{ref|citation}} was a case in which the [[United States Supreme Court]] held that [[United States federal courts]] were required to [[abstention doctrine|abstain]] from hearing any [[civil rights]] [[tort]] claims brought by a person who is currently being [[prosecution|prosecuted]] for a matter arising from that claim.

==Facts==
A [[California]] statute prohibited advocating "unlawful acts of force or violence [to] effect political change."  The [[defendant]], Harris, was charged with violating the statute, and he sued under [[42 U.S.C. § 1983]] to get an injunction preventing District Attorney [[Evelle J. Younger]] from enforcing the law on the grounds that it violated the free speech guarantee.

==Decision and precedent==
In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that federal courts may not hear the case until the person is [[convicted]] or found not guilty of the crime unless the defendant will suffer an irreparable injury that is "both great and immediate." Merely having to endure a criminal prosecution is no such irreparable harm.

There are three exceptions to Younger abstention:
#Where the prosecution is in bad faith (i.e. the state knows the person to be innocent)—as applied in ''[[Dombrowski v. Pfister]]''; or
#Where the prosecution is part of some pattern of harassment against an individual; or
#Where the law being enforced is utterly and irredeemably unconstitutional (e.g., if the state were to pass a law making it a crime to say anything negative about its governor under any circumstances).

==Status as precedent==
The doctrine was later extended to situations where the state is seeking to execute a [[civil fine]] against someone, or has jailed a person for [[contempt of court]]. The doctrine applies even where the state does not bring an action until after the person has filed a lawsuit in federal court, provided that the federal court has not yet taken any action on the suit. Moreover, the principle of abstention applies to some state administrative proceedings.

In regard to the exceptions which the ''Younger'' Court articulated, later decisions make it clear that these are highly difficult to meet.
#''Bad faith prosecution'': in no case since ''Younger'' was decided has the Supreme Court found there to exist bad faith prosecution sufficient to justify a federal court injunction against state court proceedings. The Court has specifically declined to find bad faith prosecution even in circumstances where repeated prosecutions had occurred. As commentator [[Erwin Chemerinsky]] states, the bad-faith prosecution exception seems narrowly limited to facts like those in ''Dombrowski''.&lt;ref&gt;Erwin Chemerinsky, ''Federal Jurisdiction'' (5th ed. 2007), Aspen Publishers, p.860&lt;/ref&gt;   Other scholars have even asserted that the possible range of cases which would fit the ''Dombrowski'' model and allow an exception to the no-injunction rule is so limited as to be an "empty universe."&lt;ref&gt;Chemerinsky, p. 859-60&lt;/ref&gt;
#''Patently unconstitutional law'': in no case since ''Younger'' was decided has the Supreme court found there to exist a patently unconstitutional law sufficient to justify a federal court injunction against state court proceedings. The Court has specifically declined to find such patent unconstitutionality in at least one case (Trainor v. Hernandez) &lt;ref&gt;431 US 434 (1977), [https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_1407/ oyez.org]&lt;/ref&gt;
#''Inadequate state forum'': the Supreme Court has found the state forum in question to be inadequate on a small number of occasions.&lt;ref&gt;e.g. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), [https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_477/ oyez.org]
Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973), [https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_653/ oyez.org]&lt;/ref&gt;

== See also ==
* [[Abstention doctrine]]
* [[Anti-Injunction Act (1793)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* {{wikisource-inline|Younger v. Harris}}
* {{note|citation}}{{caselaw source
 | case = ''Younger v. Harris'', {{ussc|401|37|1971|el=no}}
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/108263/younger-v-harris/
 | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/37.html
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/37/
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/2
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep401/usrep401037/usrep401037.pdf
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2453423928277325927
 }}

[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court]]
[[Category:United States Constitution Article Three case law]]
[[Category:United States abstention case law]]
[[Category:1971 in United States case law]]</text>
      <sha1>rw2jnxxjqezqnunfqwnga1xgjheawtt</sha1>
    </revision>
  </page>
  // ...

Output

[{
    "title": "Younger v. Harris",
    "Litigants": "Younger v. Harris",
    "ArgueDate": "April 1",
    "ArgueYear": "1969",
    "ReargueDate": "April 29",
    "ReargueYear": "1970",
    "ReargueDate2": "November 16",
    "ReargueYear2": "1970",
    "DecideDate": "February 23",
    "DecideYear": "1971",
    "FullName": "Evelle J. Younger, District Attorney of Los Angeles County v. John Harris, Jr., Jim Dan, Diane Hirsch, and Farrel Broslawsky",
    "USVol": "401",
    "USPage": "37",
    "ParallelCitations": "91 S. Ct. 746; 27 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 669; 1971 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 136",
    "Prior": "Judgment for plaintiffs, 281 [[F. Supp.]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/281/507/1575355/ 507] ([[United States District Court for the Central District of California|C.D. Cal.]] 1968)",
    "Subsequent": "",
    "Holding": "The possible unconstitutionality of a state statute is not grounds for a federal court to enjoin state court criminal proceedings brought pursuant to that statute.  District Court for the Central District of California reversed and remanded.",
    "SCOTUS": "1970-1971",
    "Majority": "Black",
    "JoinMajority": "Burger, Harlan, Stewart, Blackmun",
    "Concurrence": "Stewart",
    "JoinConcurrence": "Harlan",
    "Concurrence2": "Brennan",
    "JoinConcurrence2": "White, Marshall",
    "Dissent": "Douglas",
    "LawsApplied": "{{UnitedStatesCode|28|2283}}"
},
// ...
]