Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

Is this incomplete?

Contrast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_403

with

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&navby=vol&vol=403

big uh-oh

160.39.220.88 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you noticed the last 4 cases on the Findlaw site aren't in the Wikipedia list. They're orders; a dissents from denial of cert; a grant of cert; an order on supplemental proceedings; and another grant of cert. TJRC (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, could you explain in more detail why it's ok to omit those from our "list of supreme court cases"? AConcernedChicken (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Deposition Law

Hi. The Deposition Law page has been telling me to give it an international flavour for months. I tried to point out that deposition law is pretty much a north american activity, but to no avail. Perhaps my latest edits will warrant taking that note off the page?

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.202.218 (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Iamashadowyoucannotseeme (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom

• Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have nominated this article for good article status. Any neutral parties who might wish to review this article's candidacy are blatantly canvassed respectfully solicited. On a separate note, any editor interested in collaborating on this article is most welcome. (User:Ironholds has recently started contributing to the article, doubtless with a view to rectifying my disastrous attempts at improvement. More hands would be a bonus. The article certainly has FA potential, so there might be a featured credit in it for you!) Thank you, AGK 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a tech fix

Why does this work, but not this? AConcernedChicken (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For faster results, I am going to re-post this at WP:Help Desk#Requesting_a_tech_fix. AConcernedChicken (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added MAIN_CAT = WikiProject Law articles to {{WikiProject Law}}.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Murderer and accomplice tried in same venue?

If two people are arrested for murder, one committing the crime, the other an accomplice, would they both be tried in the same venue or separately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.121.80 (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: minor query at CA Code

relevant for California lawyers. user:Agradman editing as 128.59.178.82 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Should "Targeted Killing" be its own article? Or a sub-section of "Assassination"?

It would be helpful if editors with legal background, who have a moment/interest, might take a look here, and make their thoughts known.

The issue is whether we should: a) continue to have "targeted killing" be a sub-section of "assassination", or b) allow it to have its own article.

The question turns IMHO on whether, as a legal matter, targeted killing is (or is viewed by the RSs as) necessarily a sub-set of assassination. If the answer is yes, then I imagine it is no big deal either way. If the answer is that credible arguments/people might say it is not assassination, then I would think the answer might be different.

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Law on Wikisource

Slaporte and I have started up a WikiProject Law on Wikisource. I'd like to plug it on the WikiProject page, but I don't want to mess with it without consensus. Anyway, please consider joining the project, and next time you're editing an article about a public domain government edict (court case, statute, etc.), consider adding it to Wikisource if it's not already there. - LegalSkeptic (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work! bd2412 T 23:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help on a 1926 case

The question is at Talk:Learned_Hand#Need_help_with_a_1926_case. Thanks in advance, East of Borschov (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic writ could use some love

Writ of prohibition could use some love from someone with legal knowledge. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Acts of Parliament for Alsatia article

I'm having some problem reconciling the Acts of Parliament mentioned in the article about the notorious London enclave of Alsatia with actual legislation.

The "Escape from Prison Act 1697" mentioned there sounds like it is likely the Escape of Debtors, etc. Act 1696. See http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46875 See also http://alsatia.org.uk/site/2009/09/the-1697-act-against-pretended-privileged-places/ . But was it 1696 or 1697? Is there some off-by-one thing going on here about Acts of Parliament enacted in this era, perhaps to do with the difference between the time the Act was laid before Parliament, and the time it was given Royal Assent, or, if later, went into force? ( http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3226256 might help with this, but I don't have a subscription)

And, if so, could the "1723" act have been The Mint in Southwark Act 1722? -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Review request - Jacobsen v. Katzer

What is the general policy on lawsuits as articles? Jacobsen v. Katzer is a recently settled lawsuit that has seen heavy NPOV pushes from both sides. Can we establish:

1. If this even article belongs on wiki
2. How it can be modified to reflect a neutral, encyclopedic viewpoint

In my opinion, it should be deleted back to a stub at the very least but I would love to get some second/third/fourth opinions on it. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As an IP lawyer, I have to tell you, this lawsuit is pretty notable. It's one of the first (if not the first) U.S. cases to litigate an open-source license. The article is a mess, and I'm steering clear of it, but, does it belong on Wikipedia? Definitely. TJRC (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is tremendously helpful in thinking about how to approach this one. Jminthorne (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete articles about people arrested, but not (yet) convicted?

This AfD may be of interest to some here. An editor has taken the position that we should delete articles that are about people who have been arrested, if they have not (yet) been convicted.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion, California lawyer

• Kenneth Dickson

Relevant AFD discussion, on a California lawyer and politician. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). Thank you for your time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Death on the High Seas Act

• created Death on the High Seas Act stub, see Screwed if by Sea: A 90-year-old maritime law gets BP off the hook for workers killed on the Deepwater rig. Slate. • Ling.Nut 04:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

English law dispute regarding the alleged development of the right to have and use arms

There is an ongoing discussion concerning a dispute at the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution article, and being as that article is part of this Wikiproject it might be helpful if editor(s) were to drop in their and give their opinion. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The dispute will probably be more of interest to those with a background in English legal history rather than American law. The argument is not about American law relating to the second amendment but the law in England, as this it related to the the liberty of a person in England to have arms for self defence, for collective defence, and for other purposes (such as hunting) at various points in time. Arms here refers to any for of defensive or offensive weapon or armour and in particular the state of law at several points in English history. SaltyBoatr wishes defend a telling of history that the right to arms emerged only in the second part of the millennium, beginning with an obligation of a few to bear arms, which then was a right given only to protestants in the English Bill of Rights and then later extended to all (or at a minimum to all militiamen) in the US constitution. I have argued that the right to arms for defence and hunting began as a natural right in the midsts of time, long before the obligation the king put an obligation on a few to defend the interests of the monarchy. My understanding of history is therefore not that the (English) Bill of Rights granted a new right but which reinstated the ancient historic one and granting BACK to protestants the right to have arms once again. This is made clear in the full reading of the Bill which shows that both Catholics and Protestants had had weapons in the past and that Protestants had been disarmed by the late departed (to France) King. My understanding is that the English Bill of Rights is therefore NOT discriminatory against Catholics in terms of having arms in spite of wording which at face value seems to do at one point. Catholics were not barred the right to have arms after the passage of the bill as SaltyBoatr wishes to argue.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Small distinction: Hauskalainen says "My understanding of history is..." where my argument is that reliable sourcing[2] says otherwise. This is a difference between one editor's personal opinion and reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Big distinction. Your myth of the development of a right based on a single source who actually is an author sympathetic to the gun lobby. Her "idea" (of a developing right from zero to full rights) is an extension from certain factual data but the extension is her own and not supported by any primary or secondary sourcing. How can accept her as reliable sourcing if she provides no supporting evidence for her extension from a few facts. The extension wants us to believe the following

1. that the English had no right to use arms (even for hunting let alone personal safety) in the first millennium of the common era or at any time before that. Where is the evidence for this? If that restriction on rights was true, someone, somewhere along the line must have set that restriction in place. When and how did this happen? SaltyBoatR is silent on this point as is his source. Why? I contend that this is because the claim is simply not capable of being substantiated. Legal assistance here would be welcome.
2. that some people had to be granted a right in order to fulfill a legal obligation to keep arms and use them when called upon to do so. The second part is factual but the first is pure conjecture. It is not based on any contemporary or reliable sourcing.
3. that the English Bill of Rights granted a new right to the major religious faction but denied it to others. This is highly questionable as the full text of the document clearly shows that this was about the restoration to Protestants of their ancient right to have arms. A right which the previous King had illegally sought to take away from them. If SaltyBoatr's myth were true, either Catholics still today are discriminated against in the law regarding arms or the law has been changed to repeal the act or it has been ignored deliberately. If SaltyBoatr is right one of these must be true. Which is it and where is the evidence? The simple answer is that he does not have any sources showing any of this. It is conjecture based on a false reading of the law. It is very telling that the article when it was frozen contained the more complete wording of the Bill as it relates to this clause and this made it clear that this was about restoration of rights and that catholics and protestants both had exercised the right to have arms in the period before Bill of Rights was passed. The powerful lobby that edits this article amazingly seem to have friends in high places in Wikipedia as they have been able to edit this OUT of the article even during its edit freeze! I urge anyone interested in following this up to look at the article as it was at the point of my last edit before the freeze was placed and look at it now. Especially read the fuller extract from the law and not just the one line of it that SaltyBoatr wants us to read.
4. that it is the American Constitution that gives Americans the right to keep arms for their defence. This too is wrong because Americans just like their English cousins, had long had the right to keep arms for their own defence long before the Constitution was written and amended. The right to bear arms for self defence is a natural right which has been tempered progressively by law. The source of that right is not in the English or American constitution but in the common law as tempered by civil and criminal law which recognizes the natural right of the person to self preservation and the right to provide security and sustenance for one's self and one's kith and kin.

Mr SaltyBoatr wants us to treat Malcolm as a reliable secondary source for this even though Malcolm herself has no primary sourcing. The claim of a developing right is just her perception and a wrong one at that. It would be helpful to have a better legal basis for the claims that SalyBoatr makes because to me they seem to be the musings of a professor based on little more than conjecture. As are my own. I am quite happy to admit that, as yet, I have not provided any sources for my assertions. Please feel free to help us both out here.

Thanks --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Non liquet

There's lots of dispute about the meaning of "non liquet", dating back to 2008. There are suggestions at Talk:Non liquet that this article may actually be totally incorrect. I thought I ought to flag this article up for expert attention. TheGrappler (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

new related WikiProject: United States Public Policy

Hi everyone! I want to invite anyone who's active here and has an interest in American public policy to join WikiProject United States Public Policy, which is just starting up. We've got some cool things planned, including working with students and their professors for several public policy courses.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: naming of Irish legislation

There is currently a discussion here on moving the following articles:

• Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland) → Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968
• Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland) → Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968
• Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1986 (Ireland) → Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1986
• Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992 (Ireland) → Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992
• Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 (Ireland) → Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001
• Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 (Ireland) → Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001
• Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002 (Ireland) → Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002
• Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 (Ireland) → Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008

I'd appreciate input from some more contributors to move the discussion forward. It's not necessary to know anything about Ireland, just the relevant Wikipedia naming conventions. But please have a read of the brief discussion that has happened so far if you plan to jump in.

Iota (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I put up an article for Good Article review? (Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha)

I just stumbled upon Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, and I think it's exactly what a Supreme Court case should look like. I think it's deserving of Good Article status. Is there a process I should follow to make that happen? Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 18:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lead is far too short, there are too many tiny sub-sections that ought to be merged together, there are incomplete sentences ("Court of Appeals judgment affirmed."), the legacy section ought to be expanded to discuss the importance of the case and the references are uneven and inconsistently formatted. That's just for starters. It's not close to the standard of Berghuis v. Thompkins, for example. I'd suggest reading through some of the cases from various jurisdictions listed at Wikipedia:GA#Law to get a feel for what a Good Article on caselaw should contain. When you're ready, follow the instructions at WP:GAN. Bencherlite^Talk 18:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur, plus the article was assessed as a b-class article, while not meeting the requirements for that level. I re-assessed it as a c-class article, it needs significant work. GregJackP Boomer! 11:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Help/advice please

EDO MBM Technology v. Smash EDO campaign

This article is fairly new in its current form of a report on a court case. I believe that, as it is a criminal and not a civil case, its name should probably be of the form "R v (list of defendants)". However, as I am not a lawyer, I am asking here if someone could take a look at it and comment regarding the name on the article talk page. Any other changes to bring it more into line with a standard case report would also be welcome. Many thanks.

--NSH001 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the word "undertaking" sometimes used as a synonym for surety bond?

I added the word surety bond to the disambiguation page for undertaking, relying on a google search for undertaking bond. But I'm not sure about this decision so please tweak this if it's mistaken. Thanks. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CCP/3/2/14/2/1/s995.190

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Black's lists surety as one of the definitions of undertaking. Hartboy (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference etween surety and a surety bond. I am not sure that the two are interchangable. Lawblogger18 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

State secrets privilege

Sigh.

OK, look, I'm going to bite my tongue and not say anything like "lawyers are evil", etc. etc. (Everyone is hereby instructed not to read the foregoing sentence, unless they feel like it.)

The article titled state secrets privilege was until minutes ago titled State Secrets Privilege, with capital initial letters. And as I said within the edit where I changed the title, it was not consistently capitalized within the article. Even today, some people begin Wikipedia articles with all capital initial letters in the title merely because it's within the article's title. Obviously that is forbidden by WP:MOS.

Once upon a time I was summoned for jury duty. I booklet handed out to everyone who was so summoned informed people of things that the Powers That Be thought they should know about jury service. The booklet had lots of common nouns starting with Capital Letters. One of those was the term Jury Room. The room in which the jury meets is the Jury Room. It was actually spelled with a capital J and a capital R, even though "jury" was (brace yourselves!!) spelled with a lower-case initial j when writing about the body of 12 persons! I will refrain from (further?) speculation about whether this could be a sort of Freudian slip, or any guesses about what lawyers think of jurors. (In a Wizard of Id strip, a peasant asked the only lawyer who regularly appeared whether it's true that lawyers want stupid people on juries. Instead of answering the question, the lawyer said "Intelligence is not a prerequisite to being on a jury." Great.)

It does seem as if lawyers are among those who use capital letters to much. WP:MOS prescribes fairly sparing use of capitals. (People in Computer Science and in Management are Two Other Such Groups.) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I have requested a peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo's_declaration_of_independence/archive1, and would appreciate any and all help.Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings

I would like to see more opinions expressed at the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings, which has relatively few editorial voices involved in determining an issue with broad reach. This has some relation to this project, as many of the buildings affected are courthouses or other structures involved in lawmaking, and it deals with the effects of Congressional naming legislation. I believe that RFC's are traditionally kept open for a month, so opinions may be still posted for a few weeks. Cheers bd2412 T 19:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Taskforce/sub-projct

Im not sure if there already is one, but if there isn't then there should be some special field for Sharia law to get 1. get experts to elucidate the relevant info (both of Sunni and Shia variants), and 2. it is a big enough scope with plenty of articles.Lihaas (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming issue at Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act

A naming issue has come up at Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. A number of editors have moved the article to "Arizona SB 1070", although it's an enacted law, it's not a state bill, and the name is an apparently unique exception from the way that other legislation is named on Wikipedia. This is being discussed at Talk:Arizona SB 1070#Requested move - input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perry v. Schwarzenegger

This is a N.D. Calif. District court case that has recently been appealed to the 9th Circuit ([3]) However, the importance and resulting attention from the trial court case itself and the resulting decision easily merits its own article separate from higher legs of appeal.

Besides, updating the article to reflect the 9th Circuit and possibly the SCOTUS would result in confusion between trial court information and appellate court information. Simply said, organization would become a mess.

I don't see any precedent for this. (I have never seen a district court case get so much attention as of yet) So what should be done? --haha169 (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you are asking. Without getting into the merits of the case, it is still on-going and until the various appellate courts rule, the decision is not final (in contrast to what some of the links in the article indicate). It is likely at some point that the article would have to be split into separate articles, but I don't see that as feasible at this time, until there is at least briefs filed in the 9th Circuit. It may just need to morph into a an article on the appellate case as time goes on. You may want to look at McDonald v. Chicago as an example. It started as a federal District Court case article, morphed into an article about being argued at the 7th Circuit, and finally became a SCOTUS article. It's on-going, let it play out. There is no need to make a decision on this at the present time, especially considering the likelihood of it being several years before a final decision is rendered. GregJackP Boomer! 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but morphing an article like this seems difficult to me. The McDonald case (if I recall correctly) didn't even have an article until after the SCOTUS decision was made. That is how most case articles are done. But Perry, three days after the District Court opinion already has 70 KB worth of text. Morphing that into a 9th circuit and eventually SCOTUS would be difficult. What I'm asking is, is there any precedent of having separate articles for different legs of appeals? --haha169 (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Short refs for cite court

Hi. I'm developing an article on a subject that has been featured in numerous court cases. There are several cases with the same or similar plaintiffs, defendants, and years. I'd like to use a short referencing "author-date-page" scheme such as <ref name="rbn-navy1">U.S. Court of Appeals (District of Columbia), 1987a, p. 1.</ref>. I merely assume that the court is the author of record, as opposed to the judge writing the opinion (i.e. <ref name="rbn-navy1">Ginsburg, 1987a, p. 1.</ref>). Going with the title of the case, I think, would lead to TL;DR, i.e.: <ref name="rbn-navy1">Rainbow Navigation, Inc., et al. v. Department of the Navy, et al., 1987a, p. 1.</ref> Any opinions on the proper way to do this? Thanks. Haus^Talk 00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several cases entitled Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy. I have a little difficulty identifying which one you are talking about.

There is

• Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 911 F.2d 797 (D.C.Cir. 1990)[4]
• Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy 783 F.2d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 1986)[5]
• Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 699 F.Supp. 339 (D.D.C. 1988)[6]
• Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy 620 F.Supp. 534 (D.D.C. 1985)[7]
• Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy 686 F.Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1988)[8]

The 1990 opinion was written by Ginsburg. Luckily, your case name is not Untied States v. Smith[9]. With the legal citation Rainbow Navigation, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, 911 F.2d 797 (D.C.Cir. 1990). I know exactly how to find this case. This case can be found in volume 911 of the 2nd Edition of the Federal Reporter on page 797. I know that the case was decided in 1990 by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the case name from this citation. By typing 911 F.2d 797 into google scholar or a commercial legal research service such as Lexis or Westlaw, I can find this particular case. I appologize for our confusing system of citation. If you have the opinion, and have the abbreviation of the case citation e.g. 911 F.2d 797, at a minimum, you can provide this and a lawyer or law student would be able to find it. To aid the casual reader, you may provide a link to the opinion from google scholar or other site where the opinion is published. Gx872op (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm afraid I could have been clearer, and shouldn't have used a semi-fictional example. Below is an actual snippet from the article. I use the {{cite court}} template to make the full citation in the references section, but would ideally like to make some sort of unambiguous-yet-abbreviated reference to it in the spirit of Wikipedia:CITESHORT.

... During 1985, Iceland raised the matter with the United States Department of State at least six times,<ref>U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington D.C., 1986.</ref> ...

Footnotes

...

...

References

...

• Rainbow Navigation, Inc., et al. v. Department of the Navy, et al., 783 F.2d 1072 (U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington D.C. 14 February 1986).

... .

With the proviso that the full citation with the register identifier, link, etc... is presented in the References section, is "U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington D.C., 1986." a reasonable way to refer to the case in the footnotes? Thanks again, Haus^Talk 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• It should read like this:

...

• Rainbow Navigation, Inc., et al. v. Department of the Navy, et al., 783 F.2d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

...

That is the standard form for a Bluebook cite, as preferred by WP:MOSLAW. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 17:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Haus^Talk 17:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive war

Hi, a discussion on the presentation of the Six-Day War at Preemptive war has been started in the talk page to the latter article. Please join in and comment. Thanks! Shoplifter (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss Globe International

Editors are warring about which web site is the official one for the Miss Globe International article. Both sites have the look of legitimacy to a non-lawyer, such as myself. At Talk:Miss Globe International, I have started a discussion to find out which site, if not both, has a valid claim to the name. Links to the front pages, and to (what I think are) the relevant legal pages from each sight are included. Will someone here who knows something about such things please have a looksee? By the way, they are evidently two seperate pageants taking place in two different locations, on different dates. Both appear to be the sole, legal claim-holder to the name. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please share your two cents at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carter_v._Commissioner

Thanks. - Andrew Gradman editing as JD Caselaw (talk) due to Wikibreak Enforcer. (Yeah, lame.) 07:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed as Keep. TJRC (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Defamation of religions and the UN

Please let AzureFury know which lede is best at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Request_for_Comment. Skip down to the sad face if you are in a hurry. Thank you. PYRRHON  talk   15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

Menominee Tribe v. United States is a Featured Article candidate. Any interested editors may participate, and can review the Featured article criteria prior to reviewing the article. GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation problem

I'm translating Texas v. Johnson to the spanish wikipedia, but I have troubles with the expression "five-justice majority" ¿What it means?. Comu_nacho (spanish speaker) (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That the decision was passed with the smallest possible majority (five of the nine judges in the Supreme Court). Steinberger (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Comu_nacho (spanish speaker) (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Defamation, truth is an absolute defense?

It appears that defamation is defined as something false in dictionaries and legal handbooks. But several writers at the defamation page have pointed out that it not always is the case and that it might be a US centric definition without correspondence internationally. (See Truth as a defense, #definition, #Truth, again and #False). I am one of those who spotted this inconsistency over jurisdictions (I have found a string of countries where unjustified publications of true statements are defamatory, including the Philippines, France, UK and China) and have tried to get it erased as a general definition in the lead (although it have the disclaimer "usually"), but have been reverted and urged to find consensus. Others have said that defamation is defined as false, but that other laws may prohibit publishing of truths (with reference to US legal handbooks). I for one, think I found support for the notion that this separation of defamation and "public disclosure of private facts"-laws are US specific and that both are dealt with under defamation laws in some, if not most, jurisdictions (where privacy laws instead reefers to laws used in combination with the rules set out in the freedom of information legislation and data protection acts). So, do we have some expert here who can bring clarity on this issue? Steinberger (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Texas_Disposal_Systems_Landfill_v._Waste_Management_Holding

Hi, Possibly interesting law-related AfD here which has not yet attracted much attention from other editors, and is dominated by one or two contributors (largely myself and the man who appears to be the main subject of the article.) I think it's deserving of a decent debate and some input from experienced Wikipedians, and this seemed like a potential place to look for that, so I hope it's appropriate for me to post this here. Hope to see some of you add your thoughts to the dicussion. --Korruski (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Help request - Grievance

The article on Grievance was nominated for deletion. The stub is in a sorry state, and has been extensively vandalized in the past. Every hand in the project needs to fix this and find sources. Please help! Bearian (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542

There is a discussion at the talk page of Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 as to why the two Acts have the dates 1535 and 1542, but are often given the alternative titles of the "Acts of Union" of 1536 and 1543 - different dates. Both descriptions and sets of dates are verifiably in use - what we do not know is why. Can anyone here help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New portal: Portal:Law of England and Wales

Let me introduce to you all the latest portal within the project's scope, concentrating on the law of England and Wales. It particularly needs more suggestions for pictures and quotations, so please give me some ideas there! I've not finished the "Did You Know" section, but will do that gradually. Any comments gratefully received. Bencherlite^Talk 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Legal question at Suffix (name)

Please have a look at Talk:Suffix (name)#Promotion. We all know that, in the US, some people who use a suffix with their name, i.e. John Doe III, will change to John Doe Jr. after John Doe [no suffix] dies. In other families it is customary to keep the suffix throughout life, even when all the ancestors have died. The question is, is the suffix part of the legal name, or it is just a description. If one wants to change it, does one need to go through a name change process, or does one just change it whenever one feels like it.

This has important practical applications. If for example, you look at discussion boards for notaries public such as http://www.notaryrotary.com/default.asp (Notary Talk tab) or http://123notary.com/forum/ and search, you will find a great deal of confusion in this area. I suspect you would find similar confusion among other low-level officials who receive limited continuing education from their superiors. The consequences for the public will be that these minor officials will demand court ordered name changes before recognizing the new suffix, when, arguably, no such order is necessary. Or they will demand ID containing the suffix when no such requirement exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional law firms

List of fictional law firms has been nominated for deletion. I am trying to work this into a more informative article on law firms as depicted in fiction, but am relying heavily on a few sources. Any help in bringing this article to a state where it will be kept would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "versus" when specifying a case

Please could an editor with knowledge of legal terms take a look at Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom#"Wilkinson v Kitzinger" and offer an opinion on whether the term "v" (versus) is correct? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have replied there. To save anyone clicking through, the question is whether the form "Petitioner v Respondent" is correct when the petitioner and the respondent want the same outcome, and the "real" opponents are other respondents (in this case, the AG and Lord Chancellor). The answer IMHO is still "yes", although fuller case titles such as "P v R and others", or "P v R and the AG (LC intervening)" are also found and are not wrong. Views in support / opposition to this explanation welcome there! Bencherlite^Talk 20:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's.. interesting. I'd go for "yes"; situations where A and B are both arguing for the same outcome and simply want a legal comment on the matter are Re Blotto & Blotto, but that doesn't apply here. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

jurist Bio needed pls

See Talk:David_Cameron_(disambiguation)#Maybe_wrong_dab_.28.22jurist.22.29. First Chief Justice of the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island (well, actually the only one, as Begbie was Chief Justice in the Mainland Colony). The cite linked there can be paraphrased; there's a Dictionary of Canadian Biography template-boilerplate for doing so.Skookum1 (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Jacobsen v. Katzer to project

FYI, I added Jacobsen v. Katzer to this project because it seemed to fit. Feel free to assess or remove as appropriate. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1886 in organized crime

FYI, 1886 in organized crime has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Law-related deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of secular law schools in the United States. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding

I invite participants in this WikiProject to give their attention to the article Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding, which is being considered for deletion.—Wavelength (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Help: Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act 2010

can someone ehelp create this paeg along the lines of how bills in progress are made, the Senate version in the US has not passed.Lihaas (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Portal nomination

The Law of England and Wales portal has been nominated for featured status at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Law of England and Wales, and I am notifying related WikiProjects as requested in the nomination instructions. All comments for and against its promotion are welcome, ideally with reference to the featured portal criteria. Credit to Ironholds for writing the bulk of the good and featured articles highlighted by the portal. Bencherlite^Talk 11:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

SVP laws

Sexually violent predator legislation and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act: those articles are in pretty bad shape, could use some expert attention. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Law-related question at help desk

Please take a look, thanks.

[[10]]

128.59.180.164 (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State

I've tagged the Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State article with {{refimprove}} and explained my reasoning at the talk page. This follows the nomination of the article at DYK and the raising of the referencing issue there and at WT:DYK. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom Discrimination Law

I consider that several articles need rewriting after the Equality Act came into force. I think that new titles are appropriate. The articles on the Sex Discrimination Act, Disability Discrimination Act, etc, are written as if these acts are currently in force. I think that there should be separate articles for sex discrimination and disability discrimination, etc, but these should refer to the Equality Act. Possibly, there should be one article on the Equality Act alone. The article United Kingdom employment equality law duplicates much of the material in the Equality Act article. I would like to assist in this, but need help and would prefer if there was consensus before making such large amendments. Can you help? Can you comment?Abigailgem (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability of proposed legislation

I believe, after editing for some time and seeing other discussions, that it would be worthwhile to develop guidelines for the notability of proposed legislation. I include two types of proposed legislation in this discussion: legislation that had been proposed but ultimately failed, and legislation that is currently pending in a legislative body.

Given the number of bills worldwide which are proposed in legislative bodies, any specific bill that hasn't passed should be presumptively not notable. However, proposed legislation not fitting Wikipedia's notability guidelines does find its way on the site; spurred, perhaps by ancillary, political considerations that go against the principles of the site.

While other subject areas have had specific notability guidelines developed for them, proposed legislation still lacks such guidelines; an issue that has been raised several times here.

I think it would be a good idea to develop specific notability guidelines for proposed legislation. I have written up a rough draft: I invite everyone here to boldly edit the draft on my userspace.

It can be found here: User:Hartboy/Notability_(proposed_legislation)

It is indeed rough; the best practices can use considerable attention, and I have included archived discussions of the notability of specific bills as a reference for the types of issues raised.

Hartboy (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need another set of guidelines? Why not just use the general notability guideline about the amount of coverage a proposal received, together with appropriate discussions about merging content e.g. where a later piece of legislation picks up on earlier efforts? Why do we explicitly need to presume non-notability anyway when the burden is on someone wanting to write or keep an article to show that the proposal is notable and doesn't fall foul of e.g. WP:NOTNEWS? (And I took the liberty of fixing the link to your userspace draft – full urls aren't needed for internal links, of course.) Bencherlite^Talk 12:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I came up with the idea for guidelines as a result of a mixed bag of consensus over what qualifies as notable proposed legislation in several discussions, including the following:

* WP:Articles for deletion/Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

* WP:Articles for deletion/Gas tax holiday

* WP:Articles for deletion/No Child Left Inside Act of 2009

* WP:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act

* WP:Articles for deletion/Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988

* Talk:Performance Rights Act#Old act and notability

Hartboy (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussing this topic is is better than the series of WP:PRODs added by Hartboy (talk · contribs) to various articles on legislation. See my contrib list or Hartboy's for the list of PRODded articles to which I refer. Thanks. 67.101.6.133 (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a notability guide for legislation that passed? Considering that hundreds or even thousands of jurisdictions around the world have legislation that says essentially the same thing, any one instance of that legislation is not notable enough to justify an article. For example, how many municipalities do you imagine have laws requiring dog owners to use a leash?

If there is to be a guideline, I think it should be generalized to cover both passed and proposed/failed legislation. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

A-class legal articles

I notice that we have 11 entries in Category:A-Class legal articles. According to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, A-class srticles should be "well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere." (You may know that the WP Military History A-Class review is a very, very well-oiled machine and has lots of input from other editors to ensure that A-class articles in that project are just a short step from FA). As far as I'm aware, there's no such review process here at WP:Law, so I thought I'd raise the issue for discussion. Should we just reassess them to B or lower as they actually deserve; should we set up a review process; or should we allow anyone to assess an article, even one they have largely written, as A-class? United States v. Reynolds, for example, has a one-sentence lead and an odd criticism section, which appears to set out chunks of evidence to a Senate committee without quotations marks to make it clear that quotations are being used. It's not even close to GA class in my view, let alone A-class or a short step from FA. This is also an article which was assessed as A-class by one of the main authors, which isn't within the spirit of A-class reviews anyway. Thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 12:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen A-class used around this project. I'd advocate:

1. going through current A-class articles and reassessing, and
2. then deciding if we even need A-class, since projects can decide not to use it. If we decide we do want to use it, we then
3. have to set up a proper method of assessment, similar to the WP:MILHIST one, for example. I'm going for "we shouldn't use it", simply because we don't necessarily have the manpower to coordinate such a project, and the alternative (letting article-writers assess their own) is obviously problematic. Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Our time is better spent assessing articles at GA/FA/FL (and, dare I say, WP:FPOC!) than in inventing another review structure which is bound to be problematic. Bencherlite^Talk 14:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DLA Piper

There is a discussion taking place in Talk:DLA Piper#Flags and office locations, as regards whether it is appropriate to use flag images to represent all the locations of this company - in DLA Piper#Offices.

Please could others voice their opinions within the discussion, to help form consensus. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  16:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Law school's law journal -- acceptable source?

There is a discussion that may interest some people here as to whether a specific law journal at a law school is an acceptable source, for a certain article.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights / ECJ citations

I've recently encountered a couple of articles with defective links to case reports, and the only database I can find for Euro decisions requires a subscription, which doesn't help. I'm astonished, frankly, and it's possibly because it's late here, but is there a free source comparable with BAILII for these cases? Thanks. Rodhullandemu 23:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Access to full-text ECHR and ECJ decisions is free. See HUDOC (ECHR) and EUR-LEX (ECJ). Lamberhurst (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin v. Corporation for National and Community Service, et al.

Can someone review User:Skiing in Switzerland/sandbox & see if it fits into the criteria to be moved into the mainspace. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  23:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is well sourced. All claims in article match sources. Subject is notable enough to have received continuous coverage in major sources for a year and a half. Skiing in Switzerland (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was asking for a established editor that is part of WikiProject Law to look into it. You wrote the article, so of course you will think it is notable, especially since you are new to editing Wikipedia. I came to WikiProject Law, because they are more expertized in Wikipedia's policies on notable law cases. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  19:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Skiing in Switzerland is banned user User:Grundle2600, pursuing one of his hobbyhorses. Rd232 ^talk 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured portal nomination (2)

Repeat message as the portal has received no reviews after two weeks!

The Law of England and Wales portal has been nominated for featured status at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Law of England and Wales, and I am notifying related WikiProjects as requested in the nomination instructions. All comments for and against its promotion are welcome, ideally with reference to the featured portal criteria. Credit to Ironholds for writing the bulk of the good and featured articles highlighted by the portal. Bencherlite^Talk 15:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Legal articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

SS Utopia

Article needs an expert on historical maritime law - see the "Aftermath" section and talk page. East of Borschov 20:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which is relevant to the subject of this WikiProject, should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Believer" magazine as RS source for legal issues?

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Believer. -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

reliable sources for legal issues

Hi, (reposted from RS/N), we have a dispute at the Climategate article which currently reads (with emphasis added):

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the illegal release[2] of thousands of emails and other documents...

The source [2] is this document here ref.

Now many reliable sources have described the email release as simply 'unauthorised', e.g. Revkin/NYT, Yale University study, BAMS study. The only RS of a legal nature that I know of also uses this wording -- Legal News Online.

Further, some climate change skeptics, e.g. the MIT professor of atmospheric science, Richard Lindzen, have expressed the view that, since the climategate emails revealed possible attempts by CRU scientists to avoid complying with UK Freedom of Information Act laws, the release of the emails may not have been illegal, and may in fact have been protected by UK whistleblower laws.

The question is this: is this government report, noting that it bears the Royal Seal, a sufficiently reliable source to justify Wikipedia itself asserting that the email release was 'illegal'?

See also: RS/N discussion. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Attainders of Earl of Westmorland and others Act 1571

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Italicising case names

I have no idea how this has happened, but some excellent individual has made it so that all case names are now appearing as italics. Well done whoever this was! Wikidea 16:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean Mhiji (talk · contribs) with this edit to {{Infobox Court Case}}. Bencherlite^Talk 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that's it, thanks! - but it's not just the infobox itself, it's also the case name as it appears in the title of the page - for instance, and this is a question I have - this case has it: Demir and Baykara v Turkey but this one doesn't: International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP. Any ideas? Wikidea 18:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In that latter case, the name given in the infobox (The Rosella) doesn't match the title of the page so the hidden usage of {{italic title}} doesn't work. Bencherlite^Talk 08:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Shyamala Rajender

I've created a severely stubby new article titled Shyamala Rajender. I was surprised that there was apparently no article about the Rajender case within Wikipedia.

Could members of this project help civilize the article? Work is needed not only within the article, but also in other articles that should link to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Amazing how sleepy this WikiProject is. I edited this page more than 36 hours ago, and that's the most recent edit! That would never happen at the talk page of the WikiProject I'm most familiar with.

Are there no Wikipedia articles about sex-discrimination lawsuits? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This has historically been a relatively quiet wikiproject, for whatever reason. We are looking to change that, but it depends like anything else on how many editors are interested in participating at any given time.

As for sex discrimination cases, we have articles on the key Supreme Court cases that have defined the constitutional law of sex discrimination (such as Craig v. Boren, Frontiero v. Richardson, etc.). We have much lesser coverage of discrimination cases in the lower courts, which of course is understandable, as there are hundreds of them every year and each individual one, which significant, has less of an impact on the law as a whole than the Supreme Court rulings. Perhaps someone who has worked on the discrimination-related articles will know more about what other coverage we have in this area and what a good goal for it might be. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a general article on sex discrimination lawsuits? That article could link to the one I created and to the ones you mentioned. But there doesn't seem to be one. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

New Trial versus Trial de Novo

Please help, law experts. Should New trial and Trial de novo be merged to a single article? Or should they remain separate. Please comment at the talk page for new trial. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada marriage law vs Saskatchewan province polygamy

I need a legal expert to explain at User talk:Roberto12 why it is that a recent Saskatchewan marriage law determination does not have strong enough sourcing to belong in articles related to polygamy, such as Polygamy in North America. The Saskatchewan province ruling is one that seems to contradict Canadian federal law, and Roberto12 has been struggling with a way to put that fact in Wikipedia. Perhaps there is a way... you be the judge. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeking help on Universal Pictures lawsuit

Hi, my name is Hunter. I had a question I hoped members of WP:LAW could perhaps help me with, or direct me to someone (or some resource) that could. I have been working to improve the article about a B movie called Laserblast, and while searching for sources I found an old press release from PR Newswire dated October 11, 1983, about three favorable judgments that MCA-Universal had won. Regarding one of them, it said:

The "E.T." suite (sic) was a federal action filed by J.A.R. Sales and claimed that "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" infringed rights they own in the feature film "Laserblast." On Monday, Oct. 3, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Now, this didn't make very much sense to me (which makes me suspect the press release is no good) and I was having trouble finding anything else about this. However, while searching Google, I did find this page, which seems to indicate there was a suit between Universal and J.A.R. Sales over alleged copyright infringement regarding the film E.T. This source, however, mentions nothing about Laserblast. (The dates also don't match up, as the website is from 1984 and the press release is from 1983, so it's possible there is a different lawsuit between Universal and J.A.R. Sales over E.T.)

What I'm wondering is whether I can get ahold of the original complaint or docket related to this case. However, I don't have a PACER account, and don't know of any other way to get it. Does anyone know where I might be able to find this, or find more information about this case? Please let me know. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of The Hague (1895)

Treaty of The Hague (1895) has been prodded for deletion. 65.93.12.43 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rule by decree / enabling act

I'm proposing that Enabling act be merged into Rule by decree. Now I'm actually not quite sure if a merge should be done, but I am sure that there's a lot of overlap here and the relationship between these two closely related topics needs sorting out. A merge might help that, or else a merge discussion might encourage someone to sort it out so a merge isn't necessary. If a merge happens, an unmerge in WP:SUMMARY style might make sense at some point in the future when the topic is more fully developed. Input please at Talk:Rule_by_decree#Merge. Rd232 ^talk 13:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Health care lawsuit article could use attention from experts

Commonwealth of Virginia, Ex Rel. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II v. Sebelius contains citations from the Washington Post and Newsweek that the lawsuit will almost certainly reach SCOTUS, so the article could use help form several experts. This could be the most notable case in recent years, so every improvement helps a lot. Thanks. 65 fdt 6a (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)