Portal talk:Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Note: See Portal:Law/former selections for a listing of past and present featured articles, cases, biographies, and images.

Legal Meaning[edit]

I would like to see an article entitled Meaning (legal) that would summarize the history and concepts based on Original meaning and the Plain Meaning Rule (for instance). I notice that the law-related article Special meaning has been summarily deleted by someone: 2007-07-30T17:06:24 Mikkalai deleted "Special meaning" (nonspecific word combination. content was: 'Special meaning refers to the fixed or limited meaning allowed by law to be given to a word, phrase or expression in specific circumstances ...') Bob 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you enter it on Wikipedia:Requested articles? Mbisanz (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for third opinion: debate over validity of external link at article Moot Court[edit]

I have no legal background whatever, so I don't really have any good perspective on a minor dispute at Moot court. A new user, user:Jimdugan wants to press the case for an external web-site, which looks to me like spamvertising. May I invite further opinions at talk:Moot court. --John Maynard Friedman 12:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Difference between the legal terms "Inquest" and "Joint Inquest"[edit]

Recently having read the term "joint inquest" in an Agatha Christie novel, I´ve checked it in my Langentscheidt as well as in my PONS English-German dictionary, but I could only find the word "inquest" there. So I´d like to know whether "joint inquest" is the correct legal form, short "inquest", or whether there is a real difference in re. 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Review of M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath[edit]

Hi, I would like to invite all to kindly review and suggest changes needed to the article M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath, which dealt with the Public trust doctrine for the first time in India. Thanks LegalEagle 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Law related hooks that recently appeared at T:DYK[edit]

You may wish to add these to the Did you know? part of the portal, to be rotated through. It's up to you folks. Cheers, Cirt 07:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

  • The first one is not really a "law" matter - maybe a crime, but where is the legal hook? bd2412 T 12:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

who damaged the portal?[edit]

who damaged the Law portal until five minutes ago with the celtic cross and those sentences??? now all seemed gone back to normalcy, but you know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for explanation of or new article titled "Constitutional Revision"[edit]

The Prop 8 article currently discusses the legal challenges to and the CA Supreme Court ruling regarding the proposition. The article discusses a challenge to the proposition based on it being a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. Constitutional revision currently redirects to Constitution, but the latter article doesn't seem to specifically explain what a revision is. Might I ask someone to clarify this? Many thanks. MrBell (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 15 years ago I was 13 years old; I AM now- 28; At this facility I was put in the padded room for 93 days with nothing but a blue paper gown, A cold floor, no matt to lay on, No pillow, simply put: I was tortured at this facility. I was placed in a straight jacket multiple times; One time for 27 hours- I was also stripped naked several times they took my blue paper gown off and placed me on a cold steel restraint table with 4 leather cuffs that bound my ankles and hands, with a leather strap that bound my waist_ I was injected on this table MANY times with medications that to this day I have no idea what they were however they made me go in and out of consiousness and I KNOW have seriously screwed up my brain.. I personnaly hold these people accountable for continual torture to me throughout my life, right now, I continualy suffer from daily flashbacks of this place, and I suffer from nightmares of this place while I sleep. I declare that this hospital and many others like it are guilty of torture and TREASON to the highest extent of the law to: "children"> and guilty of inflicting severe mental torment that has lasted and haunted me all these years later. I ask for action and I ask that those responsible be held acountable for deystroying My chance at leading a happy full life. I SUFFER DAILY BECAUSE OF THIS F***ING HELL THAT HAS BEEN INFLICTED UPON ME BY THIS "hospital" Charter Northbrooke EAP Boys unit"4600 W Schroeder Drive Brown Deer Wisconsin, The State Of Michigan Family Independence agency; And the Hiawatha Behavioral Health agency

P.S. My Mom and My Brother Have also committed suicide, My Brother Died May 28th 1999 at the age of 25; and My mom died On March 7th 2008 at the age of 55;. I found both of them "dead" purple, Not breathing. This world sure does seem to me to be a cruel one. And The truth rarely reaches the eyes of the general public. Where was and where is the justice for my family? From: Jason Paul Arnold —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

quit claim deed[edit]

Hiw wiuld you cancel a quit claim deed if you haven't recorded it yet? (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

List of self-inculpators[edit]

In case anyone wishes to comment (or to contribute to the article in question): This incipient list of notable individuals—so far, including Mary, Queen of Scots, Marie Curie, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon—who, for a variety of reasons, have created or preserved self-inculpating evidence, to their own discomfiture or undoing, has been nominated here for deletion. Nihil novi (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Request Incidents of ownership[edit]

Hi - I am interested in Tony Honorés concept of ownership, which I learned as 'Badges or Incidents of Ownership'. However, though Honoré's work is cited several times as "seminal" I could not find an article about the concept, nor is it explored in the article Ownership. Would anybody be so kind to fill in the perceived gap? Yotwen (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I even could make out the book in question: Tony Honore, Making Law Bind (Oxford: Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press, 1987, Library of Congress) - That one however, is unavailable this side of the globe. Your help will be appreciated. Yotwen (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Selected content layout[edit]

I'd like to propose that the format for selected content is standardised using a template I have made. I've listed this intention here to allow for discussion before I change the existing selected content entries to avoid having to revert all the changes due to a problem in the template I have missed, for example. Michael Anon 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As I'm adding selected content anyway I'll use the template for new entries, which should show how it will function in practice. Michael Anon 17:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The template has been implemented for all selected articles, biographies, cases and statutes. Michael Anon 06:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Merging selected content lists with the nomination pages[edit]

I'd like to propose that the lists of selected content and the nomination pages are merged due to the amount of duplication that exists. Portal:Law/Nominate/Selected article would therefore contain a list of selected articles as it presently does, but would have instructions, perhaps in a collapsed box at the top of the page, about how to add more selected content to the page. Michael Anon 08:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant to propose that all the selected content would be merged to Portal:Law/Selected article or its equivalent, but the principle is the same. Michael Anon 19:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The changes have been implemented. Michael Anon 06:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Changing the Law Portal modules[edit]

I'd like to propose another set of changes to the Law Portal. I'm not entirely sure whether approval is encouraged or even required (WP:GLC seems a little contradictory on the point), but as I'd like to delete some pages as uncontroversial maintenance it would help to show that there are (hopefully) no major objections to the changes.

  1. I'd like to propose the removal of the selected pictures module. There are only four pictures at the moment and it seems to be extremely difficult to find good quality pictures that are relevant to the portal.
  2. I'd also like to propose the removal of the did you know module. The module seems to be too limited by the requirement that the items must already have been featured on the main page.
  3. I'd like to start an "In this month..." module, as is present at the featured Arts Portal. This would allow almost all articles (articles with at least 1,500 characters and that meet the relevant core policies) to have a chance to be displayed if there is an important cited date in the article.
  4. Finally, I'd like to even out the two main columns and arrange the content with selected articles and cases on the left and selected biographies and statutes on the right. The new "In this month..." module would go at the bottom of the left column and be balanced out by the legal news module on the right.

I look forward to receiving feedback. Michael Anon 07:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose removing of the "selected pictures" and "did you know?" areas. Both are standard features that would be required of a portal seeking featured status, which is a worthy and achievable goal for this portal. Taking DYK first, there is absolutely no difficulty in finding lots of DYKs to use - P:ENGLAW has 50 just for England and Wales, P:SCOTUS has 60 just for the US Supreme Court. As for it being difficult to find relevant good quality pictures, I'd disagree with that too. "In this month" is a good idea, as is balancing out the columns. BencherliteTalk 09:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I see that you've spotted my goal of taking this portal of featured status. As you seem to be involved with the process, would you mind clarifying the portal guidelines: are selected pictures recommended or optional? They are currently listed in both categories.
On the topic of alterations to this portal, I wasn't aware of that there were so many relevant DYKs, nor that there was such a good resource for finding them – I would therefore support retaining the module. I also have no intrinsic opposition to selected pictures, but am struggling to find relevant good quality images at the moment – is there a particularly good place I could look? Michael Anon 07:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a few pictures of courts/parliament buildings at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link John. However, I was rather hoping to find a greater number of images on a wider variety of topics – twenty seems to be the recommended minimum number of items for a module. Michael Anon 09:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the column widths and moved the modules around – the portal shouldn't look so unbalanced once the "In this month..." module has been added and the height of the selected pictures has been standardised. Michael Anon 18:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I've started the selected anniversaries page, but it will need a lot more work before the module is ready to be included on the portal main page. Michael Anon 16:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

it is our duty to deep away this problem from the society — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ministerial decree or Ministerial order?[edit]

Started this article, but not sure what the proper English term is. I see 126 articles on Wikipedia that use the term Ministerial decree. But in the UK it is called a Ministerial Order (United Kingdom). I reckon, this is the name for a Ministerial decree in this judiciary? Timelezz (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and capitalize to "Ministerial Decree" everywhere in the text? Timelezz (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Scroll Box for Entries/Decisions List[edit]

I generated a scroll box template for decisions for those who are interested in organizing decisions:

Decisions Law
Decision 1 Case 1
Decision 2 Case 2
Decision 3 Case 3
Decision 4 Case 4
Decision 5 Case 5
Decision 6 Case 6
Decision 7 Case 7
Decision 8 Case 8
Decision 9 Case 9
Decision 10 Case 10
Decision 11 Case 11
Decision 12 Case 12

Twillisjr (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Strict Constructionism[edit]

With the news of Scalia's passing, I decided to browse what WP has on Strict Constructionism, and I noticed that it's not part of WikiProject Law. Anyone care to remedy that? It could also use some improvement by an expert... (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)