Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

New category: Category:Prosecutors general

Ran across a Spanish PG, and realised there was no cat linking the various PGs. I created Category:Prosecutors general, which so far only has Category:Prosecutors general by nationality which covers Spain, Indonesia, and Ukraine. I know nothing about Law, but just trying to build the category tree here. Hope this is of use. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've put forward a GA nomination for the above article which i created (so if anyone would like to review it that would be good). I tried to find a country "legal system" GA or FA to use as a precedent but couldn't find any. I know i should have done this before the nomination, but can anyone suggest a legal system article as a good yardstick to check out best practice. DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of Aggravated battery to Battery (crime)

Wanted to notify everyone here that I believe the article on aggravated battery would be better suited if merged into the battery article. There is currently more information on aggravated battery in the actual battery article than there is in the aggravated battery article. Just a proposal and comments are welcome on the talk page. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for project help editing article with IP (drug patents) lawsuit involed

I need some expert eyes to look at Levomefolic_acid#Legal_issues. Essentially, Merck et al. are trying to get Gnosis and affiliate to cease and desist import and manufacture of different varieties of L-methylfolate compound, including "Levomefolic calcium" (as "Extrafolic-S"") - the same drug Merck has a patent on. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati#Inclusion of autopsy image. -- Trevj (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision of Illegal Immigration to the United States

Hello all. As part of a project for my sociology class I am proposing some revisions to the Deportations section of the Illegal Immigration to the United States article. I am planning on revising and expanding the entire Deportations section by including social, economic, and political aspects. For policy in particular I plan to focus on how the Patriot Act and the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act have affected deportations in recent years. I would appreciate any help in finding some more scholarly sources to back up the ways that these two acts have affected deportations in the United States. I have found some very useful articles written by Daniel Kanstroom published in the Boston College Law School Faculty Papers but would greatly appreciate more sources of general feedback on my proposal. Thanks for the help! Victoria.delgado (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please advise

The article European Commission v Italian Republic (Case C-565/08) is plainly a machine translation, but before troubling the folks at WP:PNT with it, please could you advise whether you consider it notable for the English Wikipedia? (Is there in fact a notability guideline for legal cases?) Thanks for any help. --Stfg (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Court codes in Template:Infobox high court

I think that Template:Infobox high court should include an (optional) field giving the abbreviated name of the court used in neutral citations (e.g. "UKSC" for the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom).

The template could also provide, for some Ruopean courts, the abbreviated name of the court used in the ECLI system (perhaps in the same field, although it looks like the ECLI is not part of what is generally called "neutral citation").

Apokrif (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

New law navigational boxes

Hi,

There are very thourough Trademark law and Patent law navigational boxes, but I cannot find ones for copyright law, trade secret law, or internet law. Am I missing them? If not, I intend to work on them. Feel free to get in touch to help. I'll probably work on them in my userspace here, though my busy schedule may make it a very long-term interest. Brianwc (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look and couldn't find any relevant templates either. I found Template:Trademark law and Template:Patent law, which I presume you referred to as the "very thourough Trademark law and Patent law navigational boxes". I also found Template:Intellectual property and Template:Copyright law by country, but neither appear to be equivalent to the templates that exist for trademark and patent law. I would therefore suggest that you have not missed any relevant navigational boxes. Michael Anon 07:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

New article on novel Donkey Punch

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

New article: Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

New article, created, at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

International law on civil war

Hi. There's a discussion that's just been reopened on whether to move the article Colombian civil war (1964–present) to Colombian armed conflict (1964–present). Part of the discussion hinges on whether or not the conflict meets the legal criteria for a non-international armed conflict (i.e. civil war). A informed legal perspective on this issue would be much appreciated. Thank you. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Help pick Newyorkbrad's FA project

Feel free to suggest and/or discuss at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog your preferred options. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Canadian law

Just wondering if WikiProject Canadian law is a child project of this wikiproject as is implied by looking at the main page (see:Parent project) or of WikiProject Canada? I am asking because it is not clear which assessment guidelines should be followed for example. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Are disbarred lawyers of importance at Wikipedia?

You may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7._No_indication_of_importance regarding a speedy delete of an article about a Canadian disbarred lawyer. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Style conversation

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Including case citations in the article lead that would affect the lead sentence of just about every legal case Wikipedia article. Interested editors are encouraged to participate in the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Idea–expression divide

The article at Idea–expression divide has lack of citation and US focus problems tagged since 2009. Could you all take a look at it and work on fixing it up? It seems to be a useful article, or rather it seems that many people could benefit from it, as they seem unable to make the distinction. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:See also

Reads 'A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles.' Yet I'm finding external links in these sections or entries that don't link anywhere. WP:See also also reads "The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)".

Another thing about the See also sections. They sometimes contain links to subjects already in the article. WP:See also is also quite clear when it says "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section."...William 17:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"As a general rule" implies exceptions. The exceptions that I find meaningful are:
  1. where the text has only a piped link and the "see also" provides the actual title, particularly where the connection between the text used and the actual title is distant enough that a normal reader might not catch it;
  2. where the only previous link is in the infobox, sidebar or a caption to an image;
  3. where the text occurrence is minimal and the concept is important as a related concept.

Otherwise I agree that they are duplicative and can be removed with only improvement to the article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Land Drainage Act 1930

I have created a new article, and since it is about a law, have added it to your project. I set it to Low-priority Start-Class, since I am unsure whether the method of assessment we use on WP:UKW would apply to a law article. How comprehensive does it have to be to rate as C-class? Bob1960evens (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

List of environmental laws by country

Hello, I've spun off the above-referenced article from a very unwieldy Environmental law article. The new list includes too many redlinks, including for articles in languages other than English. Assistance is welcome in further refining and developing this work in progress. (The article on environmental law needs a lot of help, too!) Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: It has been proposed that this spun-off article be moved out of Wikipedia article space to a WikiProject Environment project work page. See the 'Requested move' discussion at: (Discuss). Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Indispensable party

Please see Talk:Indispensable party, is this a US-only concept? Is it only used at the Federal level? Is it always called "Required party" ? -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Pico v. Cohn

Your attention is called to a mention of the above case at Bernard_Cohn_(politician)#Pio_Pico. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Stonewalling nominated for deletion

The article Stonewalling has been nominated for deletion. Participants of WikiProject Law may like to contribute to the discussion. Bazonka (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for Bryan v. Itasca County

This was recently promoted to GA and I would like to improve it to FA status. The review page is here. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 21:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Organization of WikiLaw

Does the WikiProject Law have any coordinators? It would be useful to address certain areas of law collectively, or have some way of coordinating with each other. Also, having other WikiLaw users do second edits on the articles, or coordinating/discussing points of law on talk pages would add community and improve standards.

For example, how and when to add our WikiProject Law banner would be helpful, and some guidelines on how to rank the importance and quality of an article. It would also be useful to include some information on how to properly cite cases in Wiki format. Arttechlaw (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Coordinating lawyers (or those involved in WP Law) would be a lot like herding cats. Easy to talk about, but extremely difficult in executing. It's a good idea though, if it can be pulled off. GregJackP Boomer! 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not done much editing using legal cases as refs. Could someone helpful point me to some guidelines as to their use? Particularly if, when and how to quote transcripts, judgements etc in WP articles. --Surturz (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at WP:MOSLAW. It is important to remember that they are primary sources, and discouraged in general articles. They can be used with caution in articles on legal issues, primarily cases, but you should always attempt to find secondary sources. GregJackP Boomer! 19:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

List of environmental laws by country

List of environmental laws by country is mostly redlinks. There is a discussion to move it to project namespace at Talk:List_of_environmental_laws_by_country#Requested_move. The discussion is a stalemate at present. Can we get some further input to break the stalemate? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

UPDATES: i) the Requested move referenced above was closed with "No consensus" (see discussion at link referenced above); ii) the article now is proposed for deletion. WP:Law participants are invited to comment on this latest proposed action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental laws by country. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

RESOLUTION: the proposed deletion has been closed with the decision, Keep. Thanks to WP:Law participants for input. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC for United States v. Lara

United States v. Lara is a Featured Article candidate. Anyone wishing to comment may do so at the comment page. GregJackP Boomer! 22:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Right of abode

Good afternoon. As a newbie not sure how to proceed – I am concerned whether the existence of a page is justified – I think it could be rather misleading. Would someone care to give it a thought, and perhaps comment on Talk:Right of abode? Littledogboy (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good places to find sources for old UK laws

Hi wikiproject, I would very much like to write an article on the 1823 Excise law, which was greatly significant in the history of whisky production, but I'm struggling to find proper sources. In general, I know much less about law than I know about whisky, and I wouldn't want to completely botch this up. If anyone could help me out with good places to find sources, or in any other way, I would be very happy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The statute itself can be located at 27 The Statutes of the United Kingdom and Ireland 459-84 (1824). Be careful, it is written in 19th century legalese, and hard to decipher. For general works, try a Google Books search using Excise Act of 1823 as the search term. Good luck, GregJackP Boomer! 00:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello,
Please note that Notability, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Possible religious basis of Indecent exposure laws?

This seems to be among the more active projects which could be seen as relevant to the discussion at Talk:Indecent exposure#Tradition. Any input on the indicated possible religious basis for the laws on this topic would be more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Youth Rights: POV Issues, SPAs, and COIs.

It appears to me that Youth Rights has more than a few issues with NPOV. It appears to me that its sole purpose is to push the agendas of organizations such as Freechild and MinorsVote. Much of it is being perpetuated by what appear to be single-purpose accounts, like Username31232133 and several IPs. Some content by user Freechild pushes the organization of the same name, which means there's likely a conflict of interest here. I also have concerns about user Freechild's general involvement in the youth rights topic, including at Adam Fletcher (activist), but I'm barking up the wrong tree with this. There are major problems with this topic and user that are beyond my experience on Wikipedia policy, and I need someone else to investigate. 65.33.107.187 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with Monetary Sovereignty

Hello,

I have been working on the monetary sovereignty page and I believe this is at least partially a legal issue. In fact, we are currently debating the legal rights associated with monetary sovereignty (see talk here). If anybody has opinions or expertise on this subject, please come help out.

Thanks, Chetrasho (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with article on sex abuse laws

Could use some assistance with Laws regarding child sexual abuse. A new user is raising an issue with the concept behind these laws and seemingly insisting that the principles of age of consent and statutory rape are uniquely American. I freely admit I could be mistaken but I suspect there might be a language barrier here that is to blame.Legitimus (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

requesting help in improving the article

Primary sketch for article on legal awareness was ready here at User:Mahitgar/legal awareness my userspace.Looking at importance of article subject I seek help in improving the article as much as possible.While currently article was in userspace still it seems going ahead in google search , So I brought the article in main namespace.

Thanks and season's greetings

Mahitgar (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • One user has evaleated new article legal awareness has suggested following improvements to the article :

{{copy edit|date=February 2013}}{{confusing|date=February 2013|reason=Laudable effort has been put into this article, but it seems rambling and incoherent. }}{{essay-like|date=February 2013}}}}

Can some one help from this project.

Rgds Mahitgar (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger of Mattel v. MCA Records into Barbie Girl

A discussion of whether to merge Mattel v. MCA Records into Barbie Girl is currently under way. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Barbie Girl#Merger discussion. TJRC (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rent charge

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Rent_charge#Rent_charge_.E2.86.92_Rentcharge, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Treachery

The usage of Treachery is under discussion, see talk:Treachery -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Law of England and Wales

Following a very old discussion on this talk page, and a more recent discussion at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, {{WikiProject Law}} now takes an additional parameter: |EW=yes will add a link to the featured portal Portal:Law of England and Wales and add the article to Category:WikiProject Law (England and Wales) articles for tracking purposes (the article remains in Category:WikiProject Law articles). BencherliteTalk 00:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD at Definitions of Pogrom

Hi everyone, we'd be grateful for your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new entry titled "Maternity leave (United States)

The Law WikiProject seeks to ensure that articles relating to legal and legislative issues are well-organized and written. In compliance with this mission, I intend to create a new entry delving into maternity leave policy within the United States with the hope of ultimately including it in this particular WikiProject. Maternity leave would be an appropriate addition to this WikiProject community as its usage and implementation relies on an established legal framework and legislative policies. Moreover, these policies have tremendous impacts on both childhood outcomes and gender equality. Despite its profound influence on American society, many individuals are often ignorant of their legal rights. Wikipedia's dearth of relevant information on United States maternity leave does not align with the topic's particular significance and prevalence. Therefore, with the page's enhancement and addition to this WikiProject, I hope to raise awareness about maternity leave within the United States. Primarily through the use of scholarly articles and policy reports, I intend to create an entirely new page delving into the history of maternity leave, its current legal and legislative framework, and its impact on American society. Given the gravity of this topic, I recognize that I likely will need assistance throughout the project. Therefore, I encourage all feedback and suggestions on any aspect of my proposal. Specifically, I welcome source recommendations and suggestions of other Wikipedia articles relevant to my topic. Thank you for all considerations.

Mwtwgt (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for New Wiki Article Titled "The Prosecution of Gender-Targeted Crimes"

Hello, after editing the "War Rape" section of the "Rwandan Genocide" article and renaming it as "Gender-Targeted Crimes," I have decided to expand beyond the Rwandan situation of gender-targeted crimes and look at the justice system of such crimes in the international and domestic (as in U.S.) perspectives. The class that I am doing the Wikipedia projects for has re-emphasized the importance and graveness of gender-targeted crimes and the lack of necessary action in carrying out the prosecution for these crimes.

To provide evidence of the graveness of the gender-targeted crimes, I have included some statements and the sources below:

  • Between 200,000 and 500,000 women are estimated to have been raped during the Rwandan Genocide. (Elbe, Stefan. 2002. "HIV/AIDs and the Changing Landscape of War in Africa." International Security, 27(2): 159-177), and it took the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), which was created to manage trials of the crimes committed, 3 years to proceed its first rape indictment (Haddad, Heidi. 2011. “Mobilizing the Will to Prosecute: Crimes of Rape at the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals.” Human Rights Review. 12(1): 109-132.)
  • In the U.S. 700,000 rapes are estimated to occur every year, but the actual number of cases may be up to fifty times the reported cases (Seager 2008).
  • Marital rape is not recognized as a crime in most countries (Seager, Joni. 2008. The Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. 4th ed. New York: Penguin Books. ).
  • Although the Violence Against Women Act, which was passed in 1994, began providing services for women facing violence, but there are limits on gender-targeted crimes reaching the Supreme Court and many of the violence cases are left for the state governments to oversee (Resnick, Judith. 2001. "Categorical Federalism: Jurisdiction, Gender, and the Globe." The Yale Law Journal. 111(3): 619-680. ).

The evidence above suggests that there is a great lack of prosecuting the crimes. Not even in the U.S. is there a efficient, working system. To solve this problem, the obvious thing to do is to find justice for the violence- to improve and reform the prosecution of the crimes. It's an issue that all nations need to focus attention to.

For the new article, which will be titled, "The Prosecution of Gender-Targeted Crimes," I plan to have information on the types of gender-targeted crimes (such as rape and domestic violence), the International Aspect (tribunals, the International Criminal Court), Domestic Aspect (United States), and Suggested Solution section. This is just a basic plan for now as I plan to develop a detailed outline when I do more research and get advice.

I have found scholarly articles that provide background information on the prosecution of the gender-targeted crimes. From a brief overview of the articles, it seems that much more needs to be done in regards to improving the prosecution system. I plan to read the articles in detail to gather more information.

I worry that the article may sound like an essay and less of an encyclopedia entry. Does anybody have some advice on avoiding that problem? Additionally, I would love to have feedback on my proposal for the new article. Any advice that would help improve the plan for my new entry would be much appreciated! Thank you. MinjKim (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity. BigJim707 (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep, but it still needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Filial support laws

A new article has appeared at Filial responsibility law. It could use some help. --Bejnar (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Boy, has the quality of this article suffered recently. Can we all help fix this mess? It was once a C-class article, and could be a GA with some work. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles on law reviews

So I recently went through and made redirects from Bluebook's Table 13 abbreviations for publications, and in so doing ended up seeing a lot of Wikipedia's coverage of law reviews... and a lot of it is concerning, both from a WP:N standpoint, and also from a WP:NOT standpoint, especially with respect to promotional edits and articles. A couple examples might include Suffolk Transnational Law Review and Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, and honestly almost all of the others (and there are a lot). Certainly there are articles on law reviews that are decently written... but I feel like most of these ought to be redirected to the law schools they belong to. Any thoughts? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You are well come to contribute and improve article legal awareness.

Mahitgar (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Formation of laws

Proposing to start a new article about Formation of laws. Please discuss notability, feasibility and scope

Mahitgar (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

UK legislation

Template:UK legislation is commonly found on articles about Acts of Parliament - but that sort of template is for navigational purposes, and (for fairly obvious reasons) the template itself doesn't reference specific pieces of legislation. Does anyone have any objections to me simply wandering around and de-cluttering many of our articles? Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it in place, personally, in the absence of a more specific navbox. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
My problem with it is it's...well, cruft. It doesn't link to things more than vaguely thematically linked to $statute, and that's what navboxes are for - thematic links. If we want a navbox for occupiers liability in English law that links to the two Occupiers Liability acts - that's helpful. A navbox on the Occupiers Liability Act page that links to a chronological list of statutes between 1849 and 1874, not so much. Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Computer law legislation

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_8#Category:Computer_law_legislation Ottawahitech (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Law, Statutes or legisation?

The subcats at Category:Statutory law by country use a variety of names for the different countries and jurisdictions. It a more consistent naming appropriate? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Law is the most general term, including written and unwritten law; legislation is all written law; statute usually a subset of legislation, probably the same as an Act of Parliament (in some jurisdictions?), ie only the legislation enacted by the legislature. It's a terminologic minefield, especially coupled with problems of translation into English. Littledogboy (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, there's a reasonable position that "written law" is rather wider than legislation (legislation being what is made by a legislature, written law being law that is written down may include other sources, eg institutional law). Legislatures make things that aren't statutes - eg the Immigration Rules. Francis Davey (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for input

Hey all, the last few weeks I've been massively expanding the article on audita querela, a mostly-abolished writ that came into existence in the 13th or 14th century. I've kind of hit a wall, and the organization on the article stinks pretty badly. Could someone more experienced come take a look and give some pointers? I'd really appreciate it. I'd be happy to reciprocate, particularly as I'll be taking medieval legal history next semester. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Tesco

I've just started editing Criticism of Tesco (which in my view is highly problematic) and notice it links to a couple of what it terms "notable" legal cases which have their own articles: Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd and Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass. Both of these appear to be a narrative description of the case without any secondary sources. I don't have any experience editing case law on WP so wonder if this is normal; do these cases merit articles? ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the statements that they're "leading cases" or "important precedents" (as both articles assert) require some citation, and are really the only reason we might consider these cases notable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for the cases themselves, but Wikidea is...notorious... for believing that secondary sources are unnecessary and our job is essentially to be a massive blue book. Ironholds (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, just a quick check of HeinOnline shows 10 U. Queensland L.J. 231 for Ward, and 4 Adel. L. Rev. 113 for Nattrass. So maybe there's more than meets the eye with respect to these cases. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

I'm working on bringing First Amendment to the United States Constitution up to Good Article status. I think it's getting close, but I'd appreciate input on the current draft from anyone with constitutional law savvy--or for that matter, anyone without it! Drop by the talk page if you have a moment or just dive right in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn, and Berman

I happened to come across this article and thought I would add some references, and while I was searching for any notable law cases, I found several (several pages) at findacase.com and findlaw.com. Considering I'm not an attorney or very familiar with law, I wanted someone to tell me if any of these cases are notable and thus should be added to the article. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. I checked Westlaw and Lexis, and the only published cases I found involving this firm were Myers v. Pension Fund, Local One Amal. Lithogs., 704 F. Supp. 343 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), which is itself not cited by any other published case; and Short v. Fulton Redevelopment Co., 390 F. Supp. 517 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), which, though cited by three other published cases, is only used as a "string cite" in those cases. Your link is just a google search, not a list of cases, so I'm not sure what exactly you're finding. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As part of a quality improvement project on a topic related to freedom of speech, I've greatly expanded upon and improved the quality of the article at page, Fuck (film). Any further suggestions for additional secondary sources and referencing would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

English classification

Hello there. I'd appreciate some help with the following issue. I found myself wikifying this article, and I was curious as to what classification system "Ch 317, [1984] 1 All ER 244" belongs to, so I can link to it appropriately. If anyone knows, feel free to wikilink it, and let me know what it is for future reference. Thank you, regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"All ER" is All England Law Reports. The citation means volume 1 of the 1984 All England Law Reports, page 244. I'm not sure what Chapter 317 means. I don't know exactly what format of citation this is; I don't think it's Bluebook. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
That's very helpful, thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"Ch 317" should be "[1984] Ch 317" i.e. page 317 of the 1984 volume of the Chancery Law Reports (part of the official series of law reports published by the ICLR). I have fixed and linked the citation. BencherliteTalk 13:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Legislative titles

A discussion related to selection of Article title of legal Acts, statutory enactment, etc is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Legislative_acts. Interested persons are requested to join the discussion there. Amartyabag TALK2ME 04:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Act vs. Crime

This conversation may interest some of you. It relates, in part, to the distinction between an "act" that may be a necessary element of a crime, and the crime itself.

I've tried to explain the difference, and how one may (for example) commit a killing without it being a murder. But I seem not to have been as clear as I might be.

It relates to the Boston Marathon bombings.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate - FA nomination

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate is currently a candidate for consideration of Featured Article quality status. The discussion page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Court of Protection

I believe Court of Protection should be monitored by this WikiProject. The Daily Mail has run several prominent articles about it, and anons have added references to their articles [1]. It would be good to see people who know what they're talking about keeping order there. Marnanel (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick

Hello all, I'm working on an article for Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, which dealt with copyright law and registration. If you're interested in working on the article, it's at my Sandbox. Thanks, Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Categorization of Law articles

Is anyone here interested in this topic? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

MOS issues, etc. aside, would anyone be interested in seeing this article approved? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A cursory look indicates there are plenty of sources quoted. I'd like an experienced editor to go through it and wikify it first. Unfortunately I have too much on my plate right now. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination for Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association

I've nominated Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association for GA status, and I'd appreciate an informed reviewer. Please have a look and maybe write a review. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

New article: Urofsky v. Gilmore

I've created the new article, Urofsky v. Gilmore. Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page, Talk:Urofsky v. Gilmore. — Cirt (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Advanced Criminal Law"

Advanced Criminal Law is a TV episode article. Would a generalized article be appropriate for Wikipedia, and does Wikipedia already have such an article on law? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That is, an advanced article on criminal law? We tend to break things down by topic area, I'm afraid, not complexity :). See, for example, Inchoate offences in English law. Ironholds (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Health & Morals of Apprentices Act 1802 & Children Act 1989

Hello all,

I thought I would ask for help here as you are all clearly very passionate about Law articles and hope you can assist.

I have recently worked on the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802 and was wondering if anyone was free to have a look and give me some ideas of how to improve it?

Also, I am attempting to write the Children Act 1989 article and have started in it my sandbox if anyone can give me some direction on this and advice on how to write it (as its a huge piece of legislation) I would really, really appreciate it.

Thanks very much, Staceydolxx (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to add all possible people to Category:American women judges. There may be a few I have missed, but at present I am led to the conclusion that this category is smaller than Category:American female pronographic film actors. The discrepancy is only about 30 articles, with 623 to 653 being our comparison numbers. So I think with a little effort we could overcome the discrepancy. Many state appeals court judges lack articles for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Another AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Watkins v. L.M. Berry Co.. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for article

Forgive me if this is not the right place. Today, I saw a statement from the White House (in the form of a letter to Congress) designating six individuals under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 1903(b)(1)). I was surprised that there was no article on this law, given the number of textual references to it in the search results. I know pretty much nothing about it (which is why I was looking for an article about it); can someone write one? 121a0012 (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuck peer review

  1. Fuck (film)
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Just had to note, I laughed when I saw this. I might be willing to throw in a few comments. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
+1. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sega v. Accolade GA Review

Hello, WikiProject Law. I'm Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past..., and I'm a frequent editor and member over at WikiProject Video games, especially with the Sega task force. I thought I'd ask here if anyone here would be willing to look at Sega v. Accolade, a GA nominee categorized under the Law subtopic. It is an important case in terms of video game law and the legalities of reverse engineering under the fair use doctrine, and has been cited in subsequent cases. I would be willing to award a barnstar to any editor who will review it and give a nice and thorough review of the article, even if it must be placed on hold to fix any lingering issues. Thank you, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Police Protection Provisions

Hello,

Don't seem to get much help from these project pages but thought it was worth a try anyway.. I have just written Police protection provisions article and I need a bit of help with it. I have listed a few things on the talk page; I would really appreciate some advice. I am not great at article writing and could do with some help.

Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Darn! You beat me here! Great minds think alike Stacey! ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Exempt income, codified legal definition. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Session laws

I just started Session laws (which I was stunned to discover didn't exist here, Session law previously being a redirect to the United States Statutes at Large, which are hardly the only session laws in the world). Any help expanding this to its appropriate degree of coverage would be appreciated. bd2412 T 00:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Project banner usage?

Hi! I'm one of the main contributors of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data. We had a discussion on Saturday about using the banner tags of other (related) WikiProjects to draw additional attention to articles that might be of interest to that project (notice to a US state project about a piece of legislation directly related to them, for example). Your project was mentioned as one that might be interested. Most of our articles are on proposed bills introduced into the United States Congress - List of bills in the 113th United States Congress. Are you interested in these bills being tagged with your banner? If not, what about the bills that have actually become law - Acts of the 113th United States Congress? I'd like to avoid spamming your project, so if you have some guidance about what would interest you and what wouldn't, that'd be great. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Created new article: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

I've gone ahead and created a new article for the book, Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

Collaboration and particularly suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. — Cirt (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd

I have, rightly or wrongly, removed a whole lot of text from Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd. When I first saw the article it was like this and to me it looked reasonably OK. When I started reading more closely I could find little or no correspondence between the section on House of Lords, particularly "Three Step Test" and the Lords Decision given as the source here. I put a few comments on the talk page. Maybe I am looking at the wrong source or not understanding things in some other way. Can someone take a look to see if I have removed too much or too little? Also, what is left could obviously be greatly improved. Thincat (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rutan v. Republican Party. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jack Pope

Currently at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jack Pope (Texas jurist). Hugo Black is the Good Article I'm trying to follow, but won't be able to edit further until the 17th. Any assistance appreciated. The Texas State Cemetery information (currently reference #2, was submitted by Pope himself, and several of the sources are involved, but so far I've only formatted what the submitter had already. I'm cross-posting this to WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Texas. Dru of Id (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyvio on Donatio mortis causa

Hi folks. I don't know anything about the law, but I came across an attempt by User:2bad2 to notify a possible copyvio in Donatio mortis causa but they'd had problems working out how the mechanics work. I've moved their comment over to Talk:Donatio mortis causa - could someone take a look please? TIA. Le Deluge (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've notified the editor who created the article and asked him to respond. Although it's almost 7 years old, the text has not changed all that much since it was created, and the 2006 initial version introduced substantially all the text that is currently in the article. I have no access to the book in question, so can't confirm. The editor is still active, and hopefully will address it. Worst case, we revert it back to a redirect, as it was prior to the introduction of the text. TJRC (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"imagining the death of the King"

According to our article on the UK Treason Act 1800, "imagining the death of the King" was one of the offences covered. Sadly, the article seems to be written in pure 1800 legalese, and doesn't make clear to the less clued-up of our readers (e.g. me for instance), what exactly such imagining consisted of. Is there any possibility that someone from this project could clarify the article a little? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books/about/Imagining_the_King_s_Death.html?id=TIIZ7Mkd-bQC It appears to be something along the lines of planning or conspiracy. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - who'd have thought there'd be a book on the subject? From the context, I'd assumed that it meant something along the lines of 'conspiring', though there may well be more to it than that. From a quick look at the introduction to the source you link, "imagining" was a contested term at the time - and note the Gillray cartoon on page 19! Somehow or other, we'll have to get that into an article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This link appears to give some examples of what would constitute "imagining", and "conspiracy" etc seems to be construed rather widely - many of thine things modern pundits say would fall under this rule if I read correctly. http://books.google.com/books?id=m2kyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA389&lpg=PA389&dq=imagining+the+death+of+the+king&source=bl&ots=evO-CbPd3D&sig=1s0EUOB_41BlsHNPgeiVxe6W2aI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JmfDUde5HePHiwK12IDIBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=imagining%20the%20death%20of%20the%20king&f=false Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that 'imagining' might well have been intended to cover more than 'conspiring' - and that the ambiguity may perhaps have not been entirely unintentional. I should probably see if I can get hold of a copy of the Barrel book, and look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
See definition 1 (full entry) at: "imagine, v.". OED Online. June 2013. Oxford University Press. 20 June 2013

Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 21:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Input needed: Emergency powers v. Wartime powers/War powers

A discussion is going on right now at WP:MILHIST that would likely benefit from some of this project's members' comments. I am a MILHIST contributor and a lawyer, but I haven't participated much in WP Law's activities. The discussion concerns whether there should be a separate article from the State of emergency article that deals with Wartime powers or War powers, or whether all "emergency powers" should be dealt with on a separate article for each country, therein differentiating between the two. Please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Wartime powers/wartime authorities if you have an opinion. Thanks very much! Cdtew (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Abortion laws

Hello Wikiproject Law -

In the course of my work on other articles, I'm often encountering material on United States present-day abortion laws (in the U.S. abortion is technically legal, but many states impose various barriers to having one, such as waiting periods, physicians mandated to give patients inaccurate medical information about the alleged risks, etc.) Would anyone be interested in working with me to create articles on some of these types of law? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Vance v. Ball State University

Could anyone help fill this is to a better start? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Afd

Albert Laszlo Haines. This article is in AfD. The main issue is the notability. Law and medicine aren't my strong fields so I am leaving this note here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nicolae Mandrea.jpg

image:Nicolae Mandrea.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control RFC

There is an RFC that may be of interest to this group at Talk:Gun_control#RFC. Subject of the RFC is "Is the use of gun restriction legislation or other confiscations by totalitarian governments (Nazi, Communist etc) accurately described as "Gun Control". Are such instances appropriate for inclusion in the Gun Control article. (Details at RFC in article)" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This RFC could use additional input. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Law Biography request

Could someone set up a biography page for Benedict Birnberg?

He seems to have been quite a character in the UK legal system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.70.205 (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I will see if we can create something for Benedict Birnberg, who is linked to Gareth Peirce, amongst others. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have notcied that certain categories in the law have very sparse coverage. I am thinking of Category:Energy law and Category:Alcohol law in the United States by state (note that 29 states are missing). Is anyone interested in helping me to build new articles in these areas of law? Bearian (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone care looking at my stubby Legal profession? Thanks Littledogboy (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That page is sublinked from Law#Legal profession. I'd suggest anything in that section of Law has a place (with more detail) in Legal profession.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks dog, I didn't know about that, see if I can enrich it from there. – I take it that at least my basic structure is not objectionable, then? Littledogboy (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

IndJustices.jpg

image:IndJustices.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The law for protection of the nation.jpg

image:The law for protection of the nation.jpg is under discussion at WP:NFCR concerning its copyright status -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Baron Leslie Scarman.jpg

image:Baron Leslie Scarman.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

wire taps

my name is larry Ahrens I live Schenectady new York I was arrested on a 49 count indictment. based on a wire tap which I feel was illeagle. if any body has any info or help it would be great help for me and my case!!!!!!!!!!!! . the police went to my phone company with no warrant and asked for my phone records and got them due to what they say was (exigent circumstances) but waited two weeks to get a warrant from the judge for my phone. I can be reached at (raffertycrystal80@yahoo.com0 thank you very much larry Ahrens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.21.236 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Using court judgments as sources

I would like to raise an issue that has bothered me for some time. It concerns the use of court cases and, more specifically, court judgments or holdings in a Wikipedia article. The general consensus on Wikipedia is that court documents and judgments are primary sources and can't be used if the information hasn't also been presented in a secondary source.

Wikipedia makes a case for not using court documents in biographies: [[2]] and in particular in biography of living persons WP:BLPPRIMARY. But Wikipedia also says in WP:PRIMARY that we may use primary sources to make “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.” Often a court judgment will provide exactly that.

This brings me the following point: I recently posted [[3]] in the NPOVN asking for input about in instance in which a Wikipedia article mentions a lawsuit but not the outcome of the case. The press had reported the accusations in a $41 million lawsuit, and this is mentioned in Wikipedia. But the press didn't ever report the fact that this lawsuit was dismissed. If we reference the $41 million lawsuit in a Wikipedia article, which to a general reader implies some sort of guilt, without mentioning the fact that it was dismissed (for which the only source is a court document), it would seem to be a violation of NPOV. The replies I got at NPOVN stated that a court document was a primary source and could only be used to support secondary sources. Those who responded didn't address the issue of NPOV.

However, the problem in this instance, and several others that I'm aware of in Wikipedia, is that the press will gladly report the beginning of a suit, but not how it was resolved. Wikipedia's emphasis on secondary sources therefore results in a skewed representation of these lawsuits in its articles. In my opinion, if the only source of information regarding the resolution of a lawsuit is a court judgment, then the judgment should be an acceptable and sufficient source. I wonder whether you have any thoughts or suggestions on how to handle this situation on Wikipedia. Thank you.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern would be that a document that appears to settle the matter might not actually settle it. Decisions can be appealed, or a party may be allowed to refile the suit. It requires special legal skills to figure out if a matter is really settled or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
That could happen, true, but the exact same thing can happen with any secondary source as well: A newspaper might report that a suit was resolved in a particular way and not report the appeal which reversed everything. Allowing the use of judgments as sources for the resolution of a court case would give us more tools to avoid such incomplete renditions. If a case is appealed, the new result can also be posted. By only using secondary sources, we are limited in our ability to correctly update proceedings. As in the case above, we may be allowed to say that a suit was filed, but not that it was ever dismissed.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, can someone point me to the WP:BLPPRIMARY discussion where the Wikipedia community agreed to "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."? I mean, the world governments' attempt to suppress access to the law (crown copyright? elohel) has harmful effects, but this? We now hold even so-called "public documents" (with giant suggestive "finger quotes") in contempt? Int21h (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We certainly should not report that a lawsuit was filed, knowing that it was dismissed, without mentioning that it was dismissed. That would be flatly misleading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Senior judges in Infobox Judge?

What's the correct way to handle federal judges' transitions to Senior Status in Template:Infobox Judge? There seem to be several approaches:

  1. Indicate their term ended when they elected senior status, and don't indicate a term of senior status. This seems misleading since it suggests senior status is retirement. But it seems to happen a fair bit.
  2. Make no indication of senior status, and treat their term as continuing. This doesn't seem to be done very often.
  3. Treat their senior status as new term, and end their regular term when they elect senior status. In my review of about 20 senior status judges, I think I found one example of this.

Thoughts? Is there a better place to discuss this? Since Template:Infobox Judge redirects to Template:Infobox officeholder, I doubt many folks watching the talk page are aware of these 3rd branch -type issues. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Notabilty of lawsuits

Folks, I have looked but cannot find any notability guidelines for lawsuits. Are there any? Specifically, any views as to whether Joan Boice, et al v. Emeritus Corporation is notable? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guidelines. I also don't see how this case is notable. It was a jury trial that had some coverage due to the amount of the award, but it is basically a BLP1E article. There wasn't anything otherwise notable about the lawsuit that I can tell. GregJackP Boomer! 19:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Non-notable lawsuit. Frontline coverage doesn't make it notable any more than Frontline coverage makes anything else notable. Usually lawsuits are notable when they are a cause celebre, or when they establish new rules of law that affect the population generally. bd2412 T 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
"or when they establish new rules of law that affect the population generally" - which only happens at the appellate level, at least in the U.S. Trial courts do not establish precedent nor rules of law. The cause celebre covers the other cases at the trial level, i.e. Zimmerman, et al. GregJackP Boomer! 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Cases establishing new law are not necessarily restricted to the appellate level - see Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.. However, that is, I would agree, by far the most common venue for such things to happen. It is worth noting, I think, that appellate cases come about because a trial court has made a decision to be reviewed. Consider the recent gay marriage cases originating in California and New York (striking down Prop. 8 and DOMA, respectively). In each case, the trial court initially decided that the restrictions in place were unconstitutional, and this decision was upheld by the appellate court, and then by the United States Supreme Court. Although these will go down in history as Supreme Court cases, the initial determination throwing out existing laws was made by the trial court. bd2412 T 14:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
But Leonard wasn't precedent until the Second Circuit affirmed in a per curiam decision, Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000). The trial court opinion was merely persuasive authority, and I don't see that it established a new rule of law, just that it was very good at explaining existing law. I think Judge Posner said it best in explaining it to Walmart who had appealed a district court judgment for fear it would set precedent - "And, Wal-Mart, this decision, a reported appellate decision, unlike the decision of the district court, will have precedential authority!" Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, 160 F.3d 358, 360-61 (7th Cir. 1998). Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
We are not about to have an article on the Second Circuit decision, which merely recounted a few facts from the case and concluded, "We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Wood's opinion". I would also say that a thorough and well-written District Court decision can be very persuasive authority. bd2412 T 16:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
True. I'm wasn't saying it wouldn't be useful to include in a brief, just that it's not binding. GregJackP Boomer! 16:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the original question, but as a style point, we should omit "et al." and the like from case names and article titles. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello, I am the creator of the article. If someone wants to nominate it for deletion, I would like to see the general consensus of the discussion so I wouldn't have to use more time on what might be a "lost cause". Thanks, Albacore (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 15:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Divorce law in China

Divorce law in China should be deleted or substantially improved. Discuss at Talk:Divorce law in China. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that International trade law, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Help with Falklands/Malvinas history & sovereignty dispute

There is an ongoing RfC that would greatly benefit from the participation of law-oriented editors who are dispassionate about the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute. We have sources, but what is lacking is to define which reading is correct.

This RfC touches, in my opinion, just an instance of some serious dubious claim that WP is currently making on this subject, caused apparently by a systemic bias. I am confident that help from dispassionate competent editors would greatly improve the objectivity of that subject. Please read the RfC for an example. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Name of lawsuit

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Name of lawsuit (version of 04:44, 9 August 2013).
—Wavelength (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Parallel construction ‎

Hello legal beagles. I actively welcome any help sourcing and expanding the article I recently created on Parallel construction. It looks like "people in know" are trying to clarify it, but don't have the sourcing. IANAL, but, then, neither are my sources. TIA -- Kendrick7talk 03:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ergenekon trials

This is a major court case which got significant attention on the media. You can see the skyrocketing if you look at the statistics ([4][5]) when the court announced its decisions. Mind that the article is very outdated. I am hoping to attract people with interest in Law to the article. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 04:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 20 where there's a question on whether these can be kept -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans

Please see Federal Assault Weapons Ban talk page and respond there for Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans

My apologies if I'm making this request wrong. Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000

If anyone has the time, a quick summary of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 would be a nice thing to add to that article, in view of the ongoing David Miranda detention story.

Some discussion of the operation of this schedule (the "port powers", descended from powers introduced as part of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 1974) can be found in the 2012, 2011, and 2010 reports of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and also this, which have led to the (partial) revisions proposed as Schedule 6 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. [6]

It shouldn't need more than a couple of paragraphs, but at the moment I'm far too over-committed IRL to do it myself. Jheald (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Justice and Security Act 2013 (the "secret courts" act) could also use a substantial update, now it's a legislated act rather than a set of outline proposals. The hearing on the Miranda case proposed for next Friday might turn out to be one of its first applications. Jheald (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page discussion - Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

I've nominated Freedom for the Thought That We Hate for Main Page discussion.

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#September_25. — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Law - Skysmith (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger doctrine articles

Several related merger doctrine stub articles were all created on May 26, 2008. The disambiguation page list all these articles and I have added obvious issues: The phrase merger doctrine or doctrine of merger may refer to one of several legal doctrines:

The relationship of course is that all the articles concern Legal doctrines of Common Law. Since the articles were created as stubs none have been expanded (not counting redirects and wrongful mergers) and have issues ranging from minor to severe.

  • Merger doctrine (antitrust law): No source or references; Orphan tag from February 2009
  • Merger doctrine (civil procedure): No source or references
  • Merger doctrine (copyright law), was merged with Idea–expression divide apparently, "because the expression is considered to be inextricably merged with the idea.". Idea–expression divide states, " In the United States this is known as the merger doctrine,...". In the article Scènes à faire (French) it states, "In the U.S. it also refers to a principle in copyright law in which certain elements of a creative work are held to be not protected when they are mandated by or customary to the genre.", but does not mention merger doctrine. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court holds that Scènes à faire and the merger doctrine are related but not the same.
  • Merger doctrine (criminal law) redirects to a section.: Redirects to The United States section of Felony murder rule. This specifically concerns the Felony murder doctrine, in that a felony-murder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. The merger doctrine holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. Charges of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon (aggravated assault) that results in a death would result in a merger and the accused would be charged with murder. This charge would apply even if the victim dies later resulting in an amended charge.

I am exploring the merger of these articles to a larger referenced article possibly titled Merger Doctrine (legal) that would include referenced sections pertaining to each one. I did not go the route of a formal merge request because I would like some input if anyone would care to look it over. Otr500 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at TDKR

Do you have a background in law? Have you recently eaten a book on the subject? Have you watched The Dark Knight Rises? Your opinion would be welcome at the talk page, where a debate is currently under way as to whether the actions of a certain character amount to kidnap. Thanks in advance!  drewmunn  talk  21:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Acts of Parliament, amendments, and wikilinking

What is the current practice for wikilinking to acts of Parliament, and for wikilinking acts of parliament to amendments of those acts?

Case in point is Alan Turing: the article links to the Official Secrets Act, but this is imprecise; it should probably link to Official Secrets Act 1911.

How is one supposed to wikilink when they mean to reference the amended act, not necessarily any specific amendment? I'm guessing wikilinking to the Official Secrets Act 1911 is better, but is wikilinking to the Official Secrets Act actually preferred? Otherwise, why not merge Official Secrets Act and Official Secrets Act (disambiguation)? Is there a preferred way to reference amendments in the original act's article, such as in the introduction, or in the "see also" section, or just sprinkled throughout like the articles in question? (In addition, I don't even think Official Secrets Act 1939 is wikilinked from the Official Secrets Act 1911 article.) Int21h (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen M. Sheppard

Dear law experts: The above article about a law professor has been sitting in Afc for over two weeks. Would anyone like to review it? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done GregJackP Boomer! 23:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! One down, 1700 to go... —Anne Delong (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act GAR

Hi There! I thought I'd post on this page to see if any people here might be able to help with the Good Article Review currently underway on this article? It feels pretty close but the reviewer is asking that, in particular, the article be reviewed for conciseness (tightening or trimming). Since I've written most of it, I'm having difficulty seeing areas that could be tightened/how, and would greatly appreciate assistance with it. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 15:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation assistance

Can anyone experienced with legal referencing please help add citations for several provisions of the ACA, if feasible, as discussed in the GAR? (And I'd also appreciate if you could also check reference 11 to confirm that I've cited it correctly please?) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sonyvhotz.djvu

image:Sonyvhotz.djvu has been nominated for deletion ; does anyone know the copyright status of legal filings? -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, if you are not already aware, there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal about court cases. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, a discussion is underway at WP:MED about the copyright status of X-rays. If anyone on this project has any insight into the copyright holder and/or whether X-rays can be posted on commons, we'd value your comment on our talk page (here). Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Jerome Frank

A discussion is underway as to whether Second Circuit judge Jerome Frank is the primary topic of that name. Please feel free to provide your opinion. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Conflict of nullity laws

The article Conflict of nullity laws has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is ultimately a piece of original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_14&oldid=1137377222"