Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 10

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Law talk page (Discussion page).
(July 2009 - April 2010) - Please Do not edit!

UK case law priorities

Hi there, I was wondering who else is actively working on UK case law articles? Got a few questions to ask on them. Thanks. RichsLaw (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That'd be me, User:Wikidea and currently User:TachyonJack in some areas. Ironholds (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I knew I'd forgotten something. When citing cases in any legal article or work, one would obviously use a correct case citation, so that any quoted judgment or information can be accurately sourced. Equally, a citation can often help find the correct appeal or stage of a case. When writing for Wikipedia, I would think that a correct citation is necessary, but I couldn't find precise consensus, and a discussion on my talk page indicated that the matter is not clear. Is there guidelines on citing cases? Wikipedia isn't written for legal experts, so I wonder on what's correct. Thanks. RichsLaw (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
When you mean "correct case citation" you mean citing particular bits of a judgement, say, or the initial citation (as in Williams v Roffey [1990] 1 QB 1 or whatever) ? Ironholds (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The case citation, yes. RichsLaw (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Standard practice in the English ones I've seen is to include the case citation under OSCOLA standards. If you look at Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, for example, you'll see the format. Ironholds (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Overton article

I'm not very sure whether the categories I put in the article are correct. By the way, the article is rather NPOV, but I don't know how to improve it. Vltava 68 06:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion as an unsourced article of a non-notable living person in the news for one event. BencherliteTalk 07:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Vltava :). Ironholds (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, on the categories - there's no need to put an article in category:Murderers of children and Category:American murderers of children, just in the latter (since it's a sub-category of the former). And you perhaps should have added Category:Living people, because this then helps biography-watchers keep an eye on it and brings up a special "editnotice". BencherliteTalk 07:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's been deleted, why's the talk page still there? Vltava 68 02:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

proposed sub-projects

I only just discovered that WikiProjects also support "subprojects" (e.g. Portal:U.S._Roads, Template:Law_projects). Between now and August, when school resumes, I'm thinking of starting up some sub-projects here -- please let me know if you think these would be good ideas:

  • JD Curriculum, to tag articles that feature in the JD Curriculum, and improve these articles so that they incorporate insights from hornbooks, treatises, casebooks, etc. -- so that ultimately, Wikipedia will be a free online hornbook.
  • A subproject of this, 1L curriculum. Same concept, but important to keep distinct, because 1Ls are so nervous -- they're all looking for secret studying tricks, so this would become popular faster than "JD Curriculum".
  • American jurisdictions. Dedicated to creating subpages of each area of law dedicated to each American jurisdiction -- (this will be very beneficial for non-Americans who are sick of US-centric articles!) -- so, e.g., "discrimination (law)" will link to a pages "discrimination (United States law)" & "discrimination (United Kingdom law)"; the former will link to a page entitled "Title VII", which will link to "Title VII (First Circuit)", "Title VII (Second Circuit)", etc. Likewise, common-law topics will include links e.g. "Negligence (Florida)" etc. (These links will be listed as they are in senate and judicial review.
  • Eventually, lawyers and bar-studiers in each jurisdiction would create subprojects for each American jurisdiction -- Florida law, Second Circuit law etc.

Thoughts? Agradman talk/contribs 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself here. Wikipedia has a very bad coverage of law and legal articles, and not that many people interested in doing much about it. Subprojects need a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of editors to get going, and while we have enough of the former we don't have enough of the latter. The method I'm using to improve coverage is this: get an area of law up to GA. English contract law is my current focus - GA for those shouldn't be too hard. Once I'm done with that, English criminal law. Then tort. And so on. Rather than creating elaborate frameworks for theoretical expansions, start the expansions and then see if such a framework can be sustained, or if it is even needed. Ironholds (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Morse v. Frederick - Good article review

If any one is interested, Morse v. Frederick is currently undergoing a Good article review. Feel free to contribute to the article in any way possible to bring it up to Good status. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

oh cool. I'll take a look at it tonight. Agradman talk/contribs 23:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ussc upgrade

I just wanted to make sure you guys were aware that last week-ish, User:Foofighter20x upgraded the Template:Ussc template, so that now when you specify the pincite, it will take you directly to the page in the case. (only justia and findlaw support this feature). Example: {{ussc|487|654|1988|pin=675}} produces 487 U.S. 654, 675 (1988).
Agradman talk/contribs 23:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

please spread the word -- starting a new club

I'm planning to start a "student wikipedia-hornbook editors" club at my law school this fall. Even if you're not personally interested in participating, I'd like to ask for help in connecting with other law wikipedians who might be -- i.e., who would be willing to start chapters of this club at their own law schools. With our free access to Lexis & Westlaw, we're in a unique position to be doing this work -- and the more schools we get involved, the easier it will be for each. Thanks. Agradman talk/contribs 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Roe v. Wade

wondering if you could look at my two proposals at the bottom of Talk:Roe v Wade. I've proposed a major overhaul of the lead, because (much to my horror) it's been wrong about the law; I've also proposed a new section, ==Synopsis==, which has not been looked upon kindly by the first administrator who stumbled across it. Thanks. Agradman talk/contribs 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Public domain/free content

We need to clarify the definitions and acceptable purposes of public domain/free content here. Thanks for your assistance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipeida policies and guidelines

Becuase Wikipedia policies and guidelines are intended to rule some practices and organize the wiki community, to stop unfairness, etc. they reflect some of the principles law have in society. I think most of rules called policies and guidelines are amatеure and rearly enforce some real need advisatory guidelines and policies. However Wikipedia have expanded and it servces real deal reference site now. Since it is not done by a few but by many and it is governed by editors i think we need and should imply better lawful notions that those of use. For example there is a harassment policy Wikipedia:Harassment but there was not a discrimination one. I made a proposal for making such Wikipedia:Discrimination. Please help wikipedia to have better guidelines becuase it has became too unfair, not clean, not organized, promoting torment by some editors on other etc. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject law is for those interested in writing articles about the law, not writing and enforcing wiki-wide policy. Ironholds (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

RECRUITING ASSISTANCE for new taskforce(s) for American law students

I am recruiting persons to help me build up one or two new "task forces" under WP:LAW. The task forces would be designed to make WP:LAW more inviting to (American) law students; depending on your feedback, the name(s) would be "JD Curriculum" (or "1L Curriculum" & "JD upperclass curriculum") (or "Student hornbook editors").

Earlier I contemplated a new Wikiproject, but I agree with people who feel this isn't the optimal choice. However, people at the the NYC Wiki-Conference 2009 suggested the "task force" model (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces); the people at the WP:WikiProject Council gave me the following explanation:



I promise to be wholeheartedly committed to this project, and will be especially aggressive in attracting new non-Wikipedians. My official real-world responsibility, as an "executive committee" member of student government at my school, is to find ways to improve student collaboration. So, I am going to be starting a club at my law school, "student Wikipedia hornbook editors," whose purpose will be to draw students to this taskforce; I will also be encouraging other schools to start clubs like this. The club chapters all around the country would use the task force as their homepage.

Persons at the WikiProject Council are offering to help, but first they would like some indication that at least five members of WP:LAW agree that this is a worthwhile project. Please let me know if you are one of them, so I can get the go-ahead from the WikiProject Council people.

Thanks, Agradman talk/contribs 06:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree it is a worthwhile project, and would be happy to support such a thing in an organisational capacity, although not in an editing one (your law is all confusing to me :P). I would simply suggest you stick to the Wikipedia standard page layout rather than writing it like an actual homebook. Any attempt to attract potential Wikipedians would be brilliant, since law as an area is covered in depressingly little detail. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fear not -- all formatting will comply with WP:LAW consensus -- this is just a recruitment, mission-building, and socializing tool. Agradman talk/contribs 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I more meant the MOS, but meh :P. Sounds good to me - as I said, anything I can do to help on the organisational side, let me know. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello everyone! I'm a postgraduate law student and I'm writing my thesis having to do (amongst others) with international tourism organisations. I am currently doing some research on the World Tourism Organization, emphasizing on legal matters and more specifically international law. Unfortunately, I cannot find adequate bibliography, either on-line or hard-copy. Has anyone came over something that could be of help? Any books, sites, links etc? Thank you in advance! I'd prefer if you answered on my talkpage but I'll watch this page too, just in case. (I placed the same comment on wikiproject tourism talkpage). Pel thal (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not really here to help you on that - we're for improving law articles, not helping students. You might want to ask over at the reference desk. Still, I'll do what I can - can you set out exactly what you're looking for? books on international law or on the WTO? Ironholds (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I know that wikiproject law is not about helping students etc (wikiproject Greece that I'm a member of is also focusing on improving articles...), you are completely right and I know I'm using up the talkpage's space with an irrelevant issue. That is why I'm thankful for anyone's help. To be more specific, I'm looking for books on the World Tourism Organization that focus on the way it works, its members, legal issues arising from its function that could be of significance for international law. Most of the books on the market deal with tourism marketing issues and the WTO's role for e.g. developping countries etc. Thank you once more and pardon me for the "abusive" use of the talkpage... Pel thal (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's likely to be a book on that sort of thing, at least not that I know of. If you're searching for a book you should ask at the reference desk - more people look at that than at this talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice! Maybe when I've finished writing my thesis, I could help out with wikiproject law. Cheers! Pel thal (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Reevaluation of National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts importance

This shows that the creator of the page added the two project banners and stated it as "mid importance". The creator of a page is not unbiased in determining such. Can someone please re-evaluate the importance? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Will redefine once the AfD is done. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

request for feedback: WP:Hornbook, the new taskforce for JD students

I've created a "beta version" of my proposed task force, "JD curriculum task force," which will be attached to WP:LAW. It's accessible at WP:Hornbook. I'm also planning to paste the text of this invitation into the talk pages of people who have identified themselves via userbox as law students or with WP:Law. Before I do so, I'd like your feedback. Agradman talk/contribs 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

May I invite someone to add "task force" infrastructure to our Wikiproject?

Kirill [talk] [pf] provided me with the basic template that I used to construct this draft task force page, and has been guiding me through the process. On my latest request for feedback, he made the following comment:


May I invite him in? :)

Agradman talk/contribs 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So ... umm ... is this what passes for a Quorum at this time of year (i.e. immediately after the bar exam)? I guess I'll wait another day and then invite Kirill to present his wares. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go for it with what we've got here. Small supports, but we're a small project, and I don't note any opposes either. Ironholds (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible infrastructure improvements

Okay, since there seems to be some interest, here's a list of infrastructure improvements that I think could be made, listed roughly in order of increasing complexity.

  1. The main project page is, in my opinion, too cluttered at the moment. I suggest switching to a tabbed layout, similar to what WP:MILHIST looks like. Nominally, you'd have a main tab (containing the scope, a structure overview, and a showcase), an open task tab (containing both the open task list and the article alerts listing), and department tabs (assessment, review, etc.).
  • Strong Support. The tabbed layout at WP:MILHIST has so many arguments in its favor. It scales well; it organizes the content; it has been tried-and-tested at many wikiprojects. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
  • Support, the milhist layout is an excellent example. Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. Instead of the current ad-hoc lists of links, I suggest creating a standardized navigation template that will link to all of the significant pages within the project, and be placed at the top of each of those pages.
  1. The default open task listing should be replaced with a custom-built one for the project; in particular, it's very useful to link to any open reviews of project articles, since that's a key area where greater participation is needed. A similar, standardized template should be deployed for each of the project's task forces
  1. The assessment system should, I think, be upgraded to use the B-Class checklist approach (in other words, the automatic assessment of articles as B-Class based on a set of checklist parameters in the project banner). These parameters can then be automatically used to generate categories indicating the areas in which any article needs work; see Category:Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation for an example.
  • neutral ... because assessment is something I have never participated in -- I don't feel qualified to express an opinion. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
  • Support, I've been involved with assessments before as part of my work starting off Wikiproject Awards and Medals. Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. A project review department should be created, perhaps initially only transcluding copies of external reviews if there's insufficient interest or manpower to maintain internal review processes.
  1. In the longer term, and particularly once this infrastructure is in place, the various child projects should be invited to become task forces of WP:LAW, thus gaining transparent access to the fully developed infrastructure. In particular, once their banners are integrated into the main one for this project, we can automatically generate all the assessment and task categories for them based on the single set of template parameters used by the core project.
  • Strong support. I have advocated this for a long time. I wouldn't impose this on anyone, but I think most of our wikiprojects would elect this if they understood the advantages. Ironholds and I have expressed the advantages of creating a task force for WP:MOSLAW, and this articulates well with that proposal. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
  • I'm not sure that splitting the MOS work into a task force is necessarily the most effective approach. For anything related to formal guidelines, maximizing participation in discussions is important, and the core project talk page usually has significantly more traffic than any task force's; that's why, for example, MOS discussions take place directly on the main project talk page in MilHist. An informal grouping of editors working on the MOS subpage may work, but I would recommend against creating a formal task force for it, since you'd now be splitting discussions even further (among the project talk page, the task force talk page, and the MOS talk page).
  • Part of the solution, in any case, will be more prominent links to the MOS page from the project's various pages.
  • Another possibility you might want to consider (although I'm uncertain of how it might be accomplished in practice) would be redirecting the MOS subpage's talk page to the project's main talk page, to centralize discussions and reduce the splintering of threads between multiple talk pages. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • hmmmm. Although I do think in the long term a WP:MOSLAW task force is the best solution, I'll postpone that conversation for another day and another thread. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
  • I could do that - will do when I get back from holiday. Internet access is on a 14-inch screen in the cocktail bar across the road (for anyone visiting Edinburgh, Dragonfly in Grassmarket does a brilliant Jim & Apple). Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. In the even longer term, I might suggest looking at designating a group of project coordinators to handle maintaining the infrastructure on a day-to-day basis; see WP:MHCOORD for an example.
  • Neutral. I'm glad that this proposal is "long term". Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
  • Strong support as a long, long term prospect. We don't really have the interest to necessitate such a thing. I'm going to look at a string of possibilities for filling out the new template, whatever that may be, and attracting an interest in WP:LAW and Wikipedia generally from outside this. Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Any comments and suggestions would be very appreciated. In particular, I'd be interested to know which of these proposals are of interest to the project so that I can prepare a more detailed implementation plan for them. Kirill [talk] [pf] 18:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Implementing infrastructure improvements

I've started working on a new page layout and navigation template (items #1 and #2 above) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/New layout. The work obviously isn't done yet, but any comments would be appreciated. In particular, a couple of things to which the project's members ought to give some thought:

  • I've used, insofar as possible, the existing color scheme; but, at least in my view, it's a bit too garish, particularly in the navigation template. Does the project want to continue using an all-blue scheme, or are there other colors people would prefer?
  • Is an explicit "Goals" section desirable? It's pretty commonplace among other projects, but there's no requirement to have one. The actual content needs to be written if such a section is needed.
  • The "Scope" section could stand to be rewritten; at the moment, it doesn't flow very smoothly, and the reference to the Philosophy WikiProject seems quite out of place.

Feedback on these issues, or on any other areas, is very welcome. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • We can rewrite the "scope" section. What does the "goals" section normally contain, specific medium- to long-term desires, such as "get all articles on aspects of English contract law to GA"? I've got no problem with changing the bright blue colour scheme to something lighter; any suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Most projects I've seen tend to post fairly long-term (and sometimes rather grandiose) goals; see, for example, the goals listed on WP:MILHIST. I would say that specific article counts, etc. are probably best presented as something other than the overall goals—otherwise, newcomers with no interest in, say, English contract law will wonder if the project really covers their areas of interest—but it's really up to you. Kirill [talk] [pf] 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Kirill, your work is always fabulous and I trust your judgment. Ironholds ditto. My first day of classes is Tuesday so I can't really be active in this redesign for a few weeks, but please forge ahead without me and I'll try to participate from the sidelines. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lawyer referral service

Would someone please check Lawyer referral service and comment here or on its talk page about whether the list of "me too" links should be eliminated? It might be best to just delete all the links and put a note on the (nonexistent) talk page that only links complying with WP:EL should be added. The American Bar Association link looks ok, but even that is not terribly helpful (I'm sure Google could locate it or similar for anyone interested). Any thoughts on the article (it has no refs). If the material is covered elsewhere, could the article be turned into a redirect? Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, and done. As for the article itself, I'd turn it into a redirect unless you can find references referring to referral services (hee) as a phenomenon. Ironholds (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States

I'd like to try to get Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States up to FA status. Any additional eyes would be appreciated! I've also listed this article for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States/archive1. bd2412 T 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Common Heritage of Mankind

Was surpised to find there was no article on this international law concept and have started it. Might be worth a look.NimbusWeb (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

good work! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook

updating our membership list

Back when I was advertising WP:Hornbook on user talkpages, I noticed that a large number of our members are inactive. Other WikiProjects don't just rely on users to update their status, but actively intervene. E.g. at Wikiproject India, the "Inactive" list is preceded by the following:


I sense that this kind of intervention wouldn't be too controversial, so I'm going to get started on it now. I think "not editing since 2008" is a good heuristic. If anyone protests, please let me complete the process before doing a revert. Once I'm done, I'm more than willing to do a revert, hash out our disagreement on this talk page, and work from there. Thanks Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't waste your time - I'll do it, you work on articley stuff. Ironholds (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, Ironholds & I have done it together! Our official population has plunged from 167 to 106. diff.
The next step is to draft a message to deliver to the talkpage of the people we've removed from the list. Something like,


of course, not that text ... something less disgusting.Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, sort of works. Do we have a banner in one of those roling internal wikiproject ads? I got thinking on ways to attract interest if we're cutting the chaff. Ironholds (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm, "Cut the chaff" doesn't have an urban dictionary entry. Which of these definitions did you have in mind? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'm not familiar with the "banner" / "rolling internal wikiproject ads" you're referring to Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The Chaff is the inedible, useless bit of grain - to "cut the chaff" or "separate the wheat from the chaff" is to remove useless bits - in this case, editors who had retired. See Template:Wikipedia ads. Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

can some UK lawyers help determine the notability of HMA v Ritchie and Morren?

In response to this AfD, I've been trying to figure out whether HMA v Ritchie and Morren is in some way notable. I've invested a lot of effort in cleaning up the article, yet I'm still unable to figure out why the article was created. I am hoping some UK lawyers can provide some insight. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A notability guideline

Based on the discussion in that AfD, I think we need to try and set out a base notability guideline for cases. My starting point is that cases are notable if:

  1. They have been covered in detail by multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject, or:
  2. They were heard in the highest court in a state/country jurisdiction acting in an appellate form:
  3. They set a legal precedent.

Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Your proposed guidelines seem good. I'm a bit new to AfD discussions -- would this be a WP:CASES, our analogue of Wikipedia:Notability (music)? If so, certain things need to be made explicit:
1. The most frequent court cases in the English Wikipedia are from English speaking, and hence common law, countries. So the guideline should place emphasis on common law cases.
2. The English-speaking jurisdictions listed at common law are: United States, United Kingdom, India, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Hong Kong. We don't need to cover all those jurisdictions, but we certainly don't need to cover jurisdictions that aren't on that list.
  1. I'd say list them as "common law jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom, India or Canada". Ironholds (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Only appellate courts can set legal precedent, but is there a way to distinguish appellate court cases that do set a precedent, from those that do not? For example, in New York there is an intermediate appellate court, above the trial court and below the highest court. In the United States, there are the Federal Circuit Courts, and the notability guideline for cases from these courts would require some nuance.
  1. Er.. no, that's not how it works. The High Court of Justice, for example, sets precedent and is a CFI. This setting of nuances isn't needed, since simply being in an appellate court isn't a guarantee of notability under this guideline. Whether the case is in the New York intermediate appellate court or the Federal Circuit Courts it doesn't matter, it's the setting of precedent that counts. Ironholds (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
4. On a related note, Is it always transparent whether a case sets a legal precedent? When someone says "XYZ case set a precedent," how do they know? A precedent is something that can bind a lower court in the jurisdiction, but that can is problematic: the extent of the "binding" doesn't get figured out until the future case.
  1. With hindsight it's easy to see - this might be problematic for more recent cases, but I can't see of a way around that. Ironholds (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
5. It sounds like we need a section for appellate cases, and a section for non-appellate cases.
6. Of course, it is not enough for the parties to be notable. The proper place to discuss the case is on the article devoted to the notable party, until the case achieves notability for other reasons. So, what are the reasons? ... is it enough for the case to have been "covered in detail by multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject"? What if a famous actress is accused of stealing from a department store, and the news media covers every aspect of the case (Ms. Jones cried upon the witness stand and apologized, the security guard testified that he had a cocaine addiction, the jury pronounced her guilty on all charges and the judge committed her to a sentence of six years in prison, thus destroying her acting career)? Nothing particularly interesting happened during the case, but the verdict was what ended a very notable career. I don't know the answer to this one.
7. In writing this guideline, we might want to do a review of the previous AfD's of court cases.

Here are the old AfDs of court cases. Wikipedia:Law/list of caselaw AfDs.
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with what Ironholds has said, really. If a case is in the House of Lords, it goes without saying that it is notable. Equally, a high court case can be notable where it sets a precedent, or is cited by future cases as a development in law. If a case is reported by numerous sources, it's probably safe to say that it's notable; journal articles and textbook coverage (which can be ascertained via google books) are also worth considering. RichsLaw (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thinking on it, would it be an idea to stick some rules in place for automatic notability of judges/lawyers as well? Ironholds (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that makes sense. Recently I saw an AfD for Druanne White, and WP:USCJ is constantly creating articles for judges. I suppose you could create Wikipedia:Notability (law) with sections for cases, judges, and lawyers; the text could be tentative and broad, and then we could invite feedback from all the related wikiprojects to flesh out the details.
  • btw, this would be a good opportunity to rally support around whatever it is we're doing for WP:MOSLAW, since part of that project will involve importing the conventions from these various wikiprojects. Let me know how I can divide this work with you. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 18:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cases

  1. it's a case of a Supreme Court of a state/country, I think we can all agree on that.
  2. It has significant coverage in third-party sources.
  3. It set a precedent
    Really that's mainly what I suggested earlier. The problem is going to be 1) cases relatively recently, where any precedent isn't yet clear, and 2) separating coverage of a celebrity's trial from coverage of the celebrity, for example. Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Criminal organization#Proposal: Guidelines on Template Use

Please join in the discussion if you are interesed Singularity42 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - magistrate judges

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandor Vadas, a user has raised the issue of the notability of U.S. Magistrate Judges. I have attached all such articles to the AfD to allow for the question to be answered in context. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Guideline

Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/notability for your comments. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll make my comments on the corresponding talk page. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Individual articles for each Article of US Constitution

Why is the need for that? (Is there an urgency?, considering each article reflects the original text?) Does it promote American "self-centrism"? I mean, how about other countries' constitution? Why this needs to be in separate articles? Why not merge them into the whole US Constitution article? Why does they have their own article, especially that they are repeating on every mother articles, or why is there a need to explain each section, each article of the US Constitution?--JL 09Talk to me! 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the US constitution and its explanatory texts are so long. We have a general rule on Wikipedia that any article longer than 80-100kb needs to be split into sub-articles, because it's just too long to reasonably load and read, and if you were to put the US constitution itself, the history of writing it, its application, and everything that's been written by academia about each section into one article it would be much, much longer than 100kb. As an example, the Second Amendment - it's commonly written about, and when writing about the Second Amendment you'd have to put in the text itself, various interpretations of the text, challenges to it, restrictions on it (Brady Bill, anyone?) challenges in the Supreme Court and elsewhere.. it would be far too long. This is nothing to do with US-centrism, and people can have separate articles on sections of the constitutions of other nations as well - if they have the sourcing and the sheer amount of prose to justify it. Ironholds (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.--JL 09Talk to me! 11:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
In fact, just to address the question about US-centrism, you can (for example) find Wikipedia articles about individual amendments to the Constitution of Ireland; see, e.g., Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Finding a case file (or whatever it's called)

I'd like to find a reliable source for this case. Anyone know where I can find one? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the case would need to be a notable one. There's Worldlii, which contains worldwide case transcripts? Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean notable in wikipedia terms, or that they only include some cases in their archives? Is it free? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's free - they normally only include cases in the higher courts. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I some searches for the case (by docket number, and also by party name) in two separate legal databases (Lexis and Westlaw), and unfortunately this case doesn't come up. That isn't proof that the case isn't notable, but it just means you'll have a headache of a time finding reliable sources.
  • If you give me more context as to how you learned about the case, and why you're writing about it, maybe I can be of more assistance. I'll respond fastest if you leave a note at my talk page, but also leave one here because maybe other wp:law wikipedians can also help. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This court document is an answers to Defendant's interrogatories of Plaintiff, TSR Inc. The Defendants in this copyright infringement lawsuit asked TSR some questions as part of pre-trial discovery. Apparently, the majority of the questions were designed to identify the source of the alleged infringement with page numbers. While the individually alleged infringement would not be copyright infringement on their own, their sheer number seems to imply that TSR might have had a viable "total concept and feel" claim for misappropriation of Gygax's Mythus book. I do not believe that this case ever went to trial or that a judge ever made an order other than to dismiss the suit. Most likely, the litigants withdrew the case after reaching a settlement. As for a source for these court documents, I do not believe it would be possible to locate them online. I searched the website of the United District Court for the Central District of Illinois and they do not have any documents. I don't think any would be on Pacer either because free disclosure was only implemented in 2002, and this case was filed in 1992. You might request copies from the court directly. If you want to know how to cite any of these documents, you would identify them by title e.g. "TSR'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO GDW'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF", along with the case name "TSR v. Game Designer's Workshop et. al." and the docket number, "92-1230." The docket number shows the date the suit was filed i.e. 1992. Gx872op (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles

I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. Users in this area have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion#Requested_move to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Globalization

I've noticed that a lot of law articles have serious systemic bias problems. In particular, many general topics like Criminal Law or Torts are presented (almost) exclusively from the point of view of common-law jurisdictions. Even the common law is perspective is almost exclusively focused on American (and, to a lesser extent, UK) common law. There is virtually nothing from other English-speaking jurisdictions and even less from non-Anglosphere common law nations like India or Pakistan. This is contrary to the idea that Wikipedia articles should have a Global Perspective.

Obviously countering these systemic biases is a major project and requires expertise that most people on this project don't have, but at the very least there needs to be more about civil law and other non-common-law legal systems. Elliotreed (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that I cross-posted this same comment to the systemic bias WikiProject talk page. Elliotreed (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I have requested a list for this project at [1]. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Law by geographical area/jurisdiction

I was just reading a few law articles e.g. no contest and Knock-and-announce. I noticed that both have been slapped with globalize tags because they deal with USA common law and the Unites States constitution. It then dawned on me that each section on Law should be grouped into the country that its laws pertain too. Rather than have an article named Burglary - with a list of countries and their legal codes/offences et al - it should be by country followed by its legal codes.

This is more logical than having one article that claims ownership over ALL similar laws in all countries.

Laws: By country Categories: Laws in that particular country

This way missing knowledge/articles can be detected more easily. e.g. Theft in UK (article)√ done but no similar (article) for Italy.

Doing it this way means there is no need to slap globalize tags on every article because they, by and large, deal solely with the United States - despite its importance on WP, the USA is just one jurisdiction among 195 others in this world, The infobar should also reflect that, clicking on it just links to articles that have been generally written by US grad school students making the Law project too American-centric.

If articles pertaining to laws were grouped by country, once a significant number of articles dealing with a particular law in a number of countries had been completed, then an article entitled the Comparison of (e.g. Robbery) law from around the world could be created. Simpler still it could be in the form of a table. With ticks or crosses for quick reference.

Either way, as an independent who by happenstance stumbled onto the aforementioned pages, I wish the Law project well but it needs a better layout/order.

Yours

Bob Jones UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.67.53 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

Relevant AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck. Cirt (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

TfD

Hi! I've nominated a template within this project's scope for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 October 9#Template:Law unref. All comments are welcome. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I frankly don't know if anyone on this project continues to keep track of pages identified by this template, but if it's useful to the project then please reflect this at the discussion. bd2412 T 14:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

This would be an interesting project of an article to get to WP:FA. Anyone interested in helping out? Cirt (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The People vs. Larry Flynt would also be an interesting one. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Inviting my attorney-friend to Wikipedia?

I have a friend my age (26) who is a lawyer and is very kind, helpful, and generous. I've thought about introducing him to Wikipedia, and specifically this Wikiproject. I'm retired (I still make a few edits per month as an anon) but the year I spent volunteering/addicted to this website has truly made me a better person. What are the chances that if a 26 y.o. attorney chosen at random from the population of all attorneys in Florida will likely have a positive experience if I (as I'm doing) try to find him a couple mentors and they teach him WP:BOLD? I'm afraid that he will not ever immerse himself "in the flow" and every article edit and talk-page edit will seem like work to him. I'm moving up to finish my last semester and will only be his friend for 5 months, so I'm aiming to be a positive influence on his life and check up on him 12 years later when I'm done with med school & residency & Korea. Please share a couple humorous/sarcastic/clever responses (they are necessary to stay civil and release tension & frustration without editors getting burnout) but at the same time, please Assume Good Faith and I will log in to my main account, which has email activated and share his name & FBA# through email to any editors I think are serious so we can fast-track him! Kudos to all the remaining warriors who fight creep and cruft! Sorry had to say that! Best, James 윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Update[2] 윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal

This is a '82 case brought by US female factory workers under the '64 Civil Rights Act, suing for equal pay and representation. It was proposed for deletion. I've deprodded as my searches indicated notability, but I don't know enough about the case to edit the article. Can anyone at this project help improve it to avoid deletion? Fences&Windows 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject matter of the case may be notable for gender discrimination, but the appeal only concerned reasonable attorney's fees. The legal significance of the case is only on this point; however, I added an info bar. Gx872op (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Name change

I would like to ask about two aspects of the Name change article.

1. Should the article be part of this project?

2. Is there any validity to this edit, especially this passage in a footnote:

Hoffman vs. Bank of America, 2006, Middle District of Florida (note that although this case appears to have been decided in 2006, it may not yet be final because the clerk did not date it with the real Year of the Lord, as the decision appears to require, but with the traditional Year of the Lord (see Chesterfield's Calendar Act; the real year of Jesus' birth is generally accepted to be 6-4 b.c.).

The claim that a decision might be invalidated or the date of some key event (the date it is too late to appeal?) could be determined by how the clerk writes the date seems outlandish, and characteristic of those who push fringe legal theories. However, I am not a lawyer or law student, and don't have access to this case, so I cannot say what this passage is really all about. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the second question, there is no validity with the note regarding the year the case was decided. It should be sourced (and I doubt one can find a reliable source stating that a decision is invalid if it does not state "Year of our Lord"). The 18th century English legislation of the Chesterfield Calendar Act is not relevant. Singularity42 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have now removed the questionable edit. Just to clarify, historically, there were missing dates on English calender when the calender was changed to the Gregorian calender. How that was dealt with was in the above mentioned Act. However, it is completely WP:FRINGE to say that courts can no longer take notice of what the current year is. If the editor continues to make those type of edits, I suggest bringing it up at the fringe theory noticeboard. Singularity42 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced-law

This template was kept (although renamed) in the TfD discussion. Please place a link to these unreferenced law-related articles on the project page. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases: 2008

I've been trying to add information to the red linked pages listed on the List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases. However I'm a little bit confused by Margine v. Ministry of Defence. Google came up with no pages regarding the case and even the official website of the records of the House of Lords bears no mention of it. Can anyone confirm that the case ever existed? Thanks, --Île_flottante~Floating island Talk 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I am unable to answer this question; however, in the course of cleaning up some typography on the page (changing "v." to "v" per British convention, and then cleaning up all the resulting redlinks), I discovered two anomalies which you might want to look into as a person with special interest in the topic:
1) The page lists "Midland Silicones v Scruttons, 1961, 2 Lloyd's Rep. 365 (H.L.)"
2) The page lists "White v White 2000" with no further info
  • however, Wikipedia has "White v White 2001". The article says the case was actually decided in 2000 so this is probably the article you're after, and I have taken the liberty of creating a redirect to there.

I'm going to suggest that you delete it. It was originally added by an IP address in the wrong date section, which leads me to doubt the credibility... Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 08:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'll remove it then. Thanks for your help! =) --Île_flottante~Floating island Talk 14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review - Court of Session (Scotland)

Please help if you can:

Thanks in advance.--Mais oui! (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging progress has been made so far. IMHO a GA review here was too early, but nevertheless it is underway. Contributions from Scots lawyers would be especially welcome:
Talk:Court of Session
--Mais oui! (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Case name

What is the right name of the second Pinochet case:

  1. R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.2)
  2. or "IN RE PINOCHET", as the Parliament website says?
  3. or "R v. BARTLE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS AND OTHERS (ex p Pinochet) and R v. EVANS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS AND OTHERS (ex p Pinochet)" (as in the third judgment)
  • or "R v. Bartle and Evans (ex p Pinochet)" (mix of 1 and 3) ?

Are there different names for the same case (e.g. a long name for the official judgement, and a shorter colloquial name ?)

In this context, do "ex parte" and "in re" have something to do with the meanings explained un Ex_parte#United States and In re respectively? Apokrif (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! The main set of law reports for House of Lords decisions (the Appeal Cases) uses the first title, so I'd be tempted to stick with that. "Ex parte Pinochet" is an abbreviated form, not a full case name. In judicial review proceedings, "ex parte X" means "on the application of X" (and in more recent times the terminology has been amended accordingly), rather than being an indication that the hearing was "ex parte" in the sense that not everybody affected by the application was notified or took part in the hearing. BencherliteTalk 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ABA site provides summaries of cases

this new site could provide very helpful guidance in writing articles:

http://new.abanet.org/SCFJI/Pages/AllCaseSummaries.aspx

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 07:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Uniform Bill of Lading Act and Uniform Bill of Lading Act of 1916 articles

We received a query on the Help Desk about the above articles.

An editor asked if these were the same Act, and I suggested that perhaps they could be merged.

However, another editor mentioned that 64th United States Congress#Major legislation lists:

  • August 9, 1916 - Uniform Bill of Lading Act of 1916
  • August 29, 1916 - 2nd Uniform Bill of Lading Act of 1916

Could someone more knowledgeable possibly look at the two articles and see if they refer to the same Bill, or whether they cover the two different bills - in which case the articles will need to be amended/moved accordingly.

Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

New articles about Pennsylvania law

--Blargh29 (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinions, please?

Some of us need help at Talk:United States copyright law#Copyright status of state laws. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Google publishing legal opinions

Check it out [3]. Remember (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Name change in United States

I have long suspected that a common-law name change advocate edited Name change#United States to overstate one's right to change one's name through the common law method of usage. Now that Remember has pointed out the legal opinions available through Google Scholar, I have been able to check some of the cases used to support the claims, and I find the cases do not provide as much support as claimed.

For example, consider the claim "[Common law name change] at will right is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment (Jech v. Burch 466 F.Supp. 714)." Jech v. Burch actually says there is a constitutional right to give a child whatever name the parents want to, absent a reasonable purpose for a state to legislate otherwise. While it mentions in passing the common law right to change one's name, it does not reach the question of whether the state can remove this common law name change method through legislation.

I would appreciate it if someone with better resources could look this section over.

Also, Jech v. Burch is a terrible article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have overhauled "Jech v. Burch", and made a few changes to "Name change in United States". --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina v. Alford

The above page and the page Alford plea overlap considerably yet differ in their definition of the plea. The latter states that it is a necessary feature of such a plea that there exists sufficient evidence to convict, the former does not. It has been asserted, therefore, (at the page Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)) that if in any case heard in the USA the plaintiff pleads guilty while maintaining innocence, it may be stated without references that evidence must have existed and been admitted. However, in the above case the plaintiff later maintained that the plea was obtained under coercion and that a nolo contendere was unavailable.

I'd appreciate attention to harmonising, referencing (and possibly merging) the above two articles and advice whether any article may state, on the sole basis that this type of plea was entered, that the plaintiff thereby accepted the existence of such compelling evidence despite statements to the contrary. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Redheylin (talk · contribs) has proposed a possible merge of articles North Carolina v. Alford (1970 Supreme Court of the United States case), with the form of guilty plea it spawned, Alford plea. Discussion is at Talk:North_Carolina_v._Alford#Contradiction_tag. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Tags_at_Alford_articles. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope of "Category:Law firms" at Wikimedia Commons

A discussion is taking place at "Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/11/Category:Law offices" concerning whether the category "Commons:Category:Law firms" should include sole practitioners, or whether images relating to the latter should simply be placed in "Commons:Category:Lawyers". Your input on the matter would be much appreciated. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Law to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of merchant ships in wartime

Can any members of this project assist with the SS Irish Oak article where there is an unreferenced statement about Irish Oak and whether or not her warning a British convoy of the presence of a German U-boat would have been a breach of neutral status. Can this be referenced, or is the statment incorrect? Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cousin marriage

Seeing as cousin marriage got kicked out of WikiProject Human Rights until I explained the human rights significance, I thought I'd be proactive and post a message here too. Currently first-cousin marriage is legally banned in most US states and there are ongoing debates in Britain and the Netherlands about banning it. Hence this is certainly a legal issue; in fact there are complexities to it that might be interesting from an academic point of view, like for example that Illinois bans marriage between cousins unless they provide proof that they can't have children.

I'd also be obliged if somebody would give the article a rating on this project's importance scale. (I noticed that same-sex marriage was given top importance. Anti-miscegenation laws wasn't in the project, but clearly ought to be in my view, so I submitted it. You might want to rate that as well.) Khin2718 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now added my name to the participant list and have rated both cousin marriage and anti-miscegenation laws as top-importance, following the lead of same-sex marriage. Khin2718 (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a subject that really gets top importance? I find it interesting, and I contributed a tidbit to the cousin marriage article, but to put this in the same category as Anti-miscegenation laws (which is a HUGE African American Civil Rights topic), and same-sex marriage, which is a highly controversial and much talked-about topic, seems somewhat strange. I don't think it deserves "Top" importance, given its ability to be strongly distinguished from Same-Sex and Anti-Miscegenation; I would recommend "Low", given the fact that it is a relatively unused part of the law. Cdtew (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the controversy in Texas and Minnesota, though, I could concede that this deserves "Mid" importance status, as any question of the validity of marriages will tie into either A) the polygamy issue (esp: FLDS) and B) the gay marriage issue (comparative validity of marriages). Cdtew (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that this deserves the same status as gay marriage and anti-miscegenation laws owing to being in the same category. (A separate question is whether all of them really deserve top importance. For example, marriage (conflict) has only high importance. Are anti-miscegenation laws really more central?) One can argue the issue is not talked about much, but that is hardly a basis for determination. Similarly we can argue it does not affect many people, but reading the article should tell you this is false, and anyway, laws need not be rigidly enforced to have powerful social effects. Khin2718 (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me if I'm being too intrusive, but it seems like this may be a more personal subject for you? I think its very hard to say that the lack of prominence of a subject in social discourse, and the lack of a large number of people it affects doesn't warrant a lower importance rating. A subject which affects African Americans as a class, or a subject which affects Homosexuals as a class are vastly more important than a subject for which there is no affected class other than "those who engage in Cousin marriage".
In addition, regardless of the historical prominence of second-cousin marriages, the main thrust of the article regards the legality of first-cousin marriages, and double-cousin marriages. Saying otherwise ignores a good 75% of the article. This issue, admitted in the text of the article itself, is of dwindling importance, whereas race relations and homeosexual issues are vastly more important, both in current events and in jurisprudence. Name me one (if any) major instances of jurisprudence regarding cousin marriage, and I will show you an infinite amount of jurisprudence regarding race and sexual orientation. I would like a third opinion on this, since you and I seem diametrically opposed.
All I'm saying is, to analogize, Cheddar, Swiss and Hoch Ybrig are all cheeses, but it is doubtful that they are of equal importance -- after all, millions eat Cheddar and Swiss, compared to a few hundred who eat Hoch Ybrig. Look at the importance standards, and you'll see that "how many people the subject affects" is one of the points to consider.Cdtew (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I certainly agree that how many people the subject affects is important to consider. So let's do it: in 1960, the last census year before anti-miscegenation statutes were removed, the proportion of interracial marriage was 0.4%, while black-white marriage was at 0.13% (many statutes only banned black-white). On the other hand, the last data we have shows first and second-cousin marriage at 0.2%. Let's guess half that (0.1%) for closer than second cousins. So somewhat smaller, but on the same order of magnitude. But we place anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage in the same category even though their proportions prior to legalization were or are even more different.
Rates in the US are also unusually tiny, and in fact worldwide the proportion of those married to close cousins is certainly higher than the proportion who are homosexual. (The proportion I would go with for the former is around 8-9%, and higher-end estimates of the latter are perhaps 5%.) You can argue cousin marriage is normally legal where its incidence is highest, but there are counterexamples to this such as India. Using only US rates would be a strong example of USA-centric thinking.
It's also not an apples to apples comparison to compare this to race relations in general, as that covers much more ground. I was strictly comparing to anti-miscegenation laws. Khin2718 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the guidelines for importance ratings call for "Top" at all. Look at what is considered a "Top" Importance article: "This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information. The article is about one of the core legal topics."

Are you a practicing lawyer or law student? I can tell you that in my entire legal education, including in Family Law courses, the subject of Cousin marriage never came up. I would imagine the same is true for international lawyers. Either way, it is certainly not about a "core legal topic" such as, for instance, tort, contract, civil law, equity, common law, criminal law, property law, or even family law, as it is a hybrid of parts of civil law, family law and criminal law.

Now, let's look at "high" importance: "This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge. The article is about the most well-known or historically significant aspects of the law."

This isn't a general area of knowledge. This isn't, for instance, a broad article on marriage, which would fit into the "High" importance category in my opinion. This is about a very infrequently discussed subset of "marriage" as a topic. Hell, "marriage" itself is rated by this project as "Mid-importance"

This topic is most definitely in the "Mid" or "Low" range of importance. Those articles are: "This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. The article is about a topic within the legal field that may or may not be commonly known outside the profession" (for Mid) or "This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia. The article is about a topic that is highly specialised within the field of legal studies and is not generally common knowledge to lay people." (for Low).

Now, you find me a non-family lawyer in any country, much less a layperson, who can give you a detailed enough description of laws relating to cousin marriage, and I will concede that this is a Mid. Hell, I would concede that anyways as a compromise.

I think you may be too personally involved in the subject, and while we could fight on and off about this, I think the only ethical thing for us both to do is flag this article for assessment by another member of the project.

While your scholarly analysis of these laws may compare cousin marriage to anti-miscegenation laws and gay marriage, I suspect the only reason those two receive "Top" importance is due to their popularity and the immense amount of attention given to them, especially considering Marriage is only considered of "Mid" importance.Cdtew (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I found it bizarre that marriage was given mid-importance while same-sex marriage was given top-importance, so in an attempt to have minimum standards of logic, I've now ranked marriage as also being top-importance.
However, I've also now realized that the rating standards for this project explicitly acknowledge popularity as an acceptable rating standard.
The criteria ... attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of the English Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it).
A search on Google News for "gay marriage" in the 2007-09 period gives 37,700 results, compared to 101 for "cousin marriage" and 231 for "miscegenation laws." Because the issues are in the same logical category and there does not seem to be that great of a difference in popularity, I suggest these last two topics should have the same rating.
I would therefore be open to demoting both anti-miscegenation laws and cousin marriage to mid-importance (but not just cousin marriage). Khin2718 (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
A little perspective here. In the field of law, Contract is of top importance. Jurisdiction is of top importance. Marriage-related issues are really more politically important than legally important. I am stunned to find by comparison that Discovery (law) is rated to be of mid-importance. bd2412 T 04:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you therefore think anti-miscegenation laws and cousin marriage should be mid-level? Khin2718 (talk)
BD2412, I agree somewhat. I think that whoever is generally rating these articles is off base. Issues like Jurisdiction and Discovery should be TOP, Marriage should be HIGH, Cousin Marriage and Anti-Miscegenation should be MID; but regardless, we have to pay some attention to popularity among lay readers -- for instance, the O.J. Simpson trial should be TOP, so should Gay Marriage or Bush v. Gore. These are likely to receive a tremendous amount of readers, regardless of their importance to legal professionals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdtew (talk • contribs) 05:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I think anti-miscegenation laws are somewhat more important than cousin marriage because the former represent an effort by one group to use the law to suppress another. Cousin marriage laws are not aimed at the suppression of cousins. I'm not so concerned about popularity among readers - should the O.J. trial be of top priority for the American Football project? Seems to me that the only project that should have that topic top-rated is Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Similarly, other projects have a focus which make gay marriage and Bush v. Gore more important to them then they really are to the law. I would say individual cases are rarely as important as general principles, and then only where the case establishes a widely applicable general principle, such as Meinhard v. Salmon, which most non-lawyers have never heard of, but which established the high lvel of fiduciary duty between business partners. bd2412 T 15:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with your first statement. To illustrate, consider South Korea. Before 1997 it banned any couple from the same surname group (which might have millions of people) from marrying. This would not be an effort to "suppress" said groups, but by Western standards, we would agree it's a pretty basic infringement of rights.
Also, the rating standards for this project specifically include popularity as a factor. I for one don't like this, but there it is. That's why I have not, for example, made same-sex marriage a mid-level article. Khin2718 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
Khin2718, I don't think you're grasping fully what BD2412 and I are saying. As I said above, Cousin marriage laws don't affect an inherent class of people; Blacks are a race, and therefore a class of people. Gays are a sexual orientation group, therefore a class. Cousins who marry other cousins are not, in a legal sense, a class of people. Blacks are black before they're married; gays are gays before they're married, but cousins are not a class of people until they marry other cousins. Blacks, for instance are potentially discriminated against because of arbitrary reasons(potentially) beyond their control. Cousins who marry other cousins are potentially discriminated against only because...they married cousins.Cdtew (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
With gay marriage the point you're making is valid, because homosexuality is at least partly innate, but not with miscegenation. Anti-miscegenation laws could be applied to people of all races, but only to who specifically married those of other races, which was certainly within their conscious control. So in Loving v. Virginia, the white husband was also sentenced, and he could certainly have married a white woman. The law was still wrong. Khin2718 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of practical historical reality, the antimiscegenation laws were used to suppress blacks, and punishing whites for marrying blacks was an indirect way of suppressing blacks. See how many antimiscegenation you can find involving either a black person and someone from any race other than white, or involving a white person and someone from any race other than black. bd2412 T 00:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
While I have no doubt that the intention of the laws was white supremacist, the more pertinent question is whether you can find any cases involving, say, a black person marrying a black person. Of course you can't. Just because these laws were part of a larger historical narrative of racism doesn't mean they didn't specifically target only people who consciously chose to marry someone of another race.
And by the way, as a somewhat irrelevant note, you can certainly find cases of whites and those of other races, particularly from western states with large Asian minorities. Khin2718 (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking for an AIT decision

According to news articles, the Asylum and immigration tribunal issued its ruling in the case of Geert Wilders on 13 October 2009, but I could not find Wilders's case on the AIT website among decisions issued on 12 or 13 October. It seems one cannot do a keyword search in AIT caselaw. I also found nothing on BAILII. Moreover, web search engines mainly bring judgements from the "starred" or "guidance note" categories, and almost nothing from unreported decisions. Is this judgement available somewhere ? Apokrif (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Found on BAILII and Refworld, see Geert Wilders and Talk:Geert Wilders. Apokrif (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pleading

Over the next couple of months, I would like to expand the article Pleadings and incorporate "stub" articles such as complaint, answer, and counter-claim. This would be put at the end of this article under the heading "type of pleadings." The idea is to expand both this article (keeping all of the information under one source) and expanding the other articles. Thoughts, suggestions, comments, complaints, etc?????????? Morning277 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Began by cleaning up the "notice pleading" section. Made it clearer for people who do not fully understand the legal terminology associated with the article. Morning277 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal interpretation

Legal interpretation is a redirect to Judicial interpretation. Is it correct? Shouldn't it be a redirect to Interpretation#Law? AFAIK Statutory interpretation and Authentic interpretation are kinds of interpretation, too. --Jaqen (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Intermediate scrutiny

Started a major cleanup of this article. Organized the section and added at least one reference (as there were none (don't know how this article survived deletion without any references)). Also added "see also" heading to show related case law. Will be back for more cleanup. Suggestions and assistance welcome and appreciated. Morning277 (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

GAR Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women?

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was just failed as a Good Article by a reviewer with a poor understanding of the topic and who seemed to want the article turned into a general piece on international law. I'd like some people to take a look at the good article review on the talk page and before I take it to WP:GAR for a reassessment. --IdiotSavant (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

advice about an article name

See Talk:Form_B_resignation#this_should_have_a_different_name. I have no clue of what is the proper legal name for that procedure. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at different articles in Wikipedia and believe that this article should be moved to the Oregon State Bar article as it is specific to the Oregon State Bar. Also, different states allow the same procedure (some actually use the same name). The procedure that is applicable to each state should go under the article for that state's bar association. There is already a heading under the Oregon State Bar for "disciplinary action." I would recommend moving the information to that section and then deleting the Form B resignation article. Also, if you feel that this is a strong topic that needs to be general and not specific to each state (as I proposed above), then I recommend creating a heading of "disciplinary procedures for bar member" under the Wikipedia Bar association article. Let me know your opinion. I will help any way that I can. Morning277 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that, except for deleting the article after merging the info. I think that a redirect to Bar association#Displiciplinary procedures or similar would be better, as people might search for that name in wikipedia when they spot it in some news article (like it happened to me). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for review - Richard Isaac Fine

I came across this one at WP:FEED and made a few clean up edits but it needs review by someone more expert than I. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I second this. This article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Isaac Fine. The discussion could really use some expert input. Voceditenore (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue influence

I have reviewed the history of the concept of "undue influence" as well as the many current trans-jurisdictional approaches to evaluating the associated claims. These are not currently found in the Wikipedia article, and I would like to add them. Do I need to speak with someone first? Bb808 (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of interest/editing help needed

A deletion discussion of possible interest, on Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., can be found here[4]. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Pending a decision on the AfD, it would be helpful to get assistance in the article talk space from members of this project. The discussion in Talk:Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. concerns the notability of the article, whether other related articles that may be created (there is no article on a much bigger and more significant defamation suit), and whether cuts to the article should be restored or retained. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Incubator Invitation for Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers

Hi. I have put an article on Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers in the article incubator, here: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bocconi School of Law Student-Edited Papers. Feel free to cooperate if you have any practical ideas to help establish notability. Incidentally, let me anticipate that the journal is actually the first student-edited legal working paper series, which has been created in Europe better to adapt to the editorial panorama of the Old Continent, where student-edited law reviews are not nearly as popular as they are in the US. I have already provided references (e.g. an article appeared on the German Law Journal) for these claims. Thanks for any help you may provide me with, --Grasshopper6 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Balisong (knife)

Could someone please check my recent edit to the Balisong (knife) article, and check whether I've cited the correct legislation in the statement "Sale, lending, hiring, giving or importing is prohibited by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by the Offensive Weapons Act 1996." Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate for WPP Law?

Is adding the WPP Law template appropriate for an article where the topic was the subject of a significant lawsuit? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

An legal issue has come up on the talk page for the safety of the Large Hadron Collider, at Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider#Eric Johnson legal article at arxiv.org/abs/0912.5480, based on an article preprint by Asst. Prof. Eric Johnson of the University of North Dakota. It is not clearly a physics article, and it is not clear to me that it meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, but even if it does not, probably something similar will pass muster in the future. I thought you folks might like to take a look. The issues are difficult, to say the least. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I now see the reference, Johnson, Eric E, The Black Hole Case, Tennessee Law Review, Vol 76, pp 819-908, either published in late 2009 or early 2010, so I assume it is reliable, and have added it to the "Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider" article. If anyone thinks it is not reliable, please remove it, or let us know on the article talk page. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Sales Act

Just wondering, I haven't found an article on Wikipedia dealing with this "Act" that seems to e/affect very, VERY few states, which includes my state of Wisconsin. Seems unfair that such a thing isn't listed in Wikipedia, at least, it isn't listed when I search; there is only one mention of it in the search results, but no article from what I see. At least, it's not its own article, which it should be, or have at least a redirect to the real article.

NO, this is not about an act in England, wales, whatever, this is a United States Act. You can do a google search if you don't know what I mean. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Harry McSHANE And Workplace Safety Laws

I submit that a page for Harry McSHANE be created considering the impact that his accident had on workplace safety laws; All workplace safety law discussion really did start with his picture, much moreso that the Triangle Waistshirt Factory Fire, which has it’s own article; Though the Triangle Fire had a much greater impact in terms of laws made and changed, McSHANE’S picture started people discussing the matter, and he should have at least a nominal acknowledgement. 174.25.99.225 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem

Greetings. Since you guys know how articles on laws are supposed to be written, can you give me a hand and suggest a standard format for the article. You do not have to worry too much about content since I can provide most of that. However, the only really law article I wrote was Constitution of Belarus (an FA) and it has been years since that. Any help will be greatly appreciated. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The first thing I notice is that the title of the article is "Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem" but the article says "'Law Concerning the National Flag and Anthem' is a word-to-word translation". Also, when I first saw the article title, I was wondering to which country's law, flag, and anthem the article referred. You may also wish to review the following pages: Template:WPLAW, Template:Law, Template:Law sidebar. Category:WikiProject Law, Category:Law navbox templates, and perhaps most importantly Wikipedia:Community_portal#Guidelines. Squideshi (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It was originally named as "Law Concerning the National Flag and Anthem" but I moved it to Law Regarding the National Flag and National Anthem because that is the term I saw the Japanese Government actual use. However, I must not that the title was moved to add "Japanese" at the start so it tells you what country this law affects. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
After some time playing around with it, it does have a infobox now and a scan of the actual law in the infobox. Need to double check if the sources still work, but I hope yall find it worthy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Data theft in the UK

Does anyone here have some expertise in the above and if so, would you be willing to come over to Talk: Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and explain to us whether what the victim describes as an "unauthorised release" of data might also be capable of being called "theft". A brief run-down on the whole topic would be the most valuable but any comments would be welcome. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Rodhullandemu 19:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia at peer review

I've submitted this Ninogram as part of my drive to get this to be the first FA on a Supreme Court justice. Reviews at [5], and keep in mind that I kept the legal lingo and jargon toned down because this article is intended for lay people.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Categoryzing courts

I've started a discussion, proposing to merge Category:Judiciaries, Category:Courts by country and Category:Court systems by country - here. Suppose there is a need for more experts in the discussion.Fuseau (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Prior restraint

The article on prior restraint has an extensive bibliography and external link section, but no inline references. Could someone help add them? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

added archiving

I've boldly added auto archiving for threads stale 30+ days leaving a minimum 7 threads so the page doesn't empty. Feel free to tweak as needed. -- Banjeboi 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Willamette University College of Law

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Willamette University College of Law/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this proposal

Hi all,

I just requested that someone create some templates for our use. I think these templates be very helpful, if used in moderation. The request is at this page. I hope you'll take a look and leave some feedback there.

Also, I haven't passed through this wikiproject since the summer; I really miss working with y'all, and I hope your semesters or professions have been treating you well.

Best,

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We are a long long way from having a decent product liability or class action or antitrust article--and I can only imagine what a mess the other substantive law articles are. Let's get that in order first before we start thinking about sixty-two-plus sub-article stubs--most of which would require substantial original research and would end up being spam magnets. Keep in mind we have only 131 project members, and only a fraction of those are simultaneously active and American. THF (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're correct. I don't suggest that people should be pasting these templates into every single article; it's just a good resource to have. For example, it is used well at Tobacco MSA#Individual_state_settlements.
Anyhow, just for the record, the templates are {{U.S. state jurisdictions}} and {{U.S. federal jurisdictions}}, and they are generated by typing {{subst:U.S. state jurisdictions}} and {{subst:U.S. federal jurisdictions}}.
As a next step, it would be great if we could put in some piping, so that if I type {{subst:U.S. state jurisdictions|CUSTOM TITLE}}, the template will use the CUSTOM TITLE instead of the PAGE NAME.
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Subject (vs. citizen): a very basic topic that appears to lack an article.

The concept of a subject (as against a citizen) appears to lack an article. I came across this while translating the article that is now national sovereignty, where I was looking for a link to this to contrast to citizen. Subject is a disambiguation page; the closest thing to a relevant article there is common people, which is really not quite on the mark.

Unsurprisingly, this is a difficult topic on which to do any effective online search, so someone would need to know a good resource to get even a well-cited quasi-stub. I believe the article should go at subject (law) and once it is written, someone may want to look at incoming links to common people, which contributors may have made by default because that is the least bad choice that the disambiguation page gives.

There is some useful material in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Sovereignty", but it doesn't cover the basics that would belong in a lead paragraph. - Jmabel | Talk 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil procedure

I went to Civil procedure, spun off Civil procedure in the United States, then seeded articles for every state using the new {{U.S. state jurisdictions}}. I am now gathering material on Civil Procedure (New York), the New York CPLR, and the prior CPA (Throop Code). I won't be able to start writing these articles anytime soon, so feel free to help :) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

justia.com a spam site?

Throughout the month of February, some spammer (using numerous Wikipedia accounts) replaced internal wikilinks with external links to justia.com, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#justia.com. While I am not sure whether that person is affiliated to justia.com (why would you do that if you aren't affiliated?), I suggest we should remove all justia.com links from Wikipedia, including from templates such as {{Ussc}} and {{Caselaw source}}. --bender235 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

YIKES -- I'm glad you identified this behavior -- it makes me made mad to see someone replacing perfectly good wikilinks with external links.
FYI, as I recall, I was one of the people who promoted making Justia.com the default for {{ussc}}. This made sense because, at the time we did so, justia.com was the only source of free caselaw that let you create a url that would jump you down to a pincite -- e.g., {{ussc|343|579|1952|pin=635}} yields 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952). If this is still the case, then getting rid of justia.com would undercut the functionality of {{ussc}}.
They seem like a legitimate compnay. Would there be any benefit in contacting them? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments here. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Can I have a third opinion on my article here and this sort of edit please? It seems to me appropriate that an article should list the salient points of a judgment and include the facts of the case (and that it should follow the guidelines on lead sections) but Wikidea seems unconvinced. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My initial impression is that Ironholds' edit seems more appropriate in style — though I would prefer to see a much shorter lead section. My main objection to Wikidea's edit is that the lengthy block quote is way too long — also that Wikidea's version gives far too little background. Wikidea's version also seems to suffer from being an "insider" piece that isn't very accessible to those not already familiar with the subject matter. Richwales (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be good to shorten the lead; can you suggest how/what to do? I've tried to include a summarised form of the pertinent facts (and this is the cutdown version!); any further points in the right direction would be much appreciated, since I think I can get it to FA with a little effort. Ironholds (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree here. Half the article is a block quote in the latter edit, and it's uncited at that. I don't really think that is encyclopedia-worthy. Sure, Ironholds's edit is not perfect, but this is also not a problem (see the last bullet). However, it is a vast improvement over the overly-lengthy block quote which leads a reader to "why am I reading this?" --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

First, you guys are edit-warring. That's not right. Second, Ironholds is abusing the "minor" tag in this edit [7] (see WP:MINOR for a definition of what is minor). Third, Ironholds version [8] is too complicated and begins with a summary of the facts when it should begin with the important precedent/ruling that was established. The summary of the facts should be in the body. If the main point is to include mention of Mackay's dissent, that can be done without way inflating the lead. II | (t - c) 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask you to Assume Good Faith? It was a mis-hit of a button, not "abuse". I have repeatedly linked Wikidea to WP:BRD (and indeed have stopped reverting, and will not do so until this discussion is concluded) but he doesn't seem interested. I agree that the lead needs reworking, as said above; a more specific and pertinent question would be "do you agree with Wikidea's replacement of my "court proceedings" section with a simple copy-and-paste quote from the House of Lords case?". Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I do think your sections are an improvement in that particular spot. But a couple clarifications - BRD isn't a license to edit-war, it's a way to start a discussion. You found the most interested editor when he reverted, then you have to discuss with him or get outside comments. You have seemingly ignored his pertinent comments, which are that your material should have been integrated with the existing material, particularly the existing pithy and cogent lead. Also, I mean no bad faith - I have done the same thing - but you used a misleading edit summary in your initial revision which did not say much to your fellow editors ("expand a tiny bit" [9], when the expansion more than doubled the size of the page). If you'd used a better edit summary, engaged in the discussion which Wikidea opened, and tried to integrate your information in, you might have been able to resolve this without resorting to a third opinion. II | (t - c)
  1. The edit summary was intended as a joke; I didn't know he'd react how he did (see similar summaries at Court of Chancery, for example.
  2. I did engage in that discussion
  3. The lead he had would be far too short; while I appreciate mine is too long, relying on his would be exchanging one extreme for another. This was the only integration-worthy section, and you'll note that I did so in the text of my lead (see, for example, the first sentence and a reference used throughout my version of the article).
  4. My "assume good faith" was in relation to your "Ironholds is abusing the minor tag" comment.
  5. I have encountered Wikidea before. Virtually the only way to avoid a third opinion being required is to give in to his demands, regardless of what they may be, including in one case the idea that an article should be based on primary sources instead of secondary ones, and academic writers were not appropriate sources for what the current law is. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Before I forget - please use better section titles in the future. This section title is like a "help" section title. As far as Wikidea, I have some experience with him as he's prolific in the economics articles. He's stubborn and sometimes mean, but he's also smart and prolific and I think you're assuming bad faith when you say you can't get along with him. My reading of his comments (Talk:Pepper_v_Hart#Overhaul) were that he was offended, like me, at the complexity which was suddenly imposed upon the reader. Trimming the lead similar to the way I did would have likely reduced his concerns significantly. As far as rejecting secondary sources, I did look into your discussions [10] and I agree with you to some extent, but one of his main arguments is accessibility. WP:PSTS is a bit more nuanced than you give it credit for, and a case can certainly be a secondary source when it's commenting on another case and on precedents. It's also a secondary source for the facts, similar to a reporter. Wikidea isn't alone in worrying about accessibility; unfortunately, the only reference which is freely-available in your article was the one provided by Wikidea. Thus, it's impossible for me to give your article an adequate GA review without visiting the library, which is not going to happen for something like this. II | (t - c) 09:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you do many Good Article reviews? Because it is ludicrous to state that articles cannot effectively be GAs unless the reviewer has access to every source. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of secondary sources — Are there, in fact, any reliable secondary sources discussing this case from a layman's point of view? (E.g., newspapers, news magazines, etc.?) If this truly is a "landmark" decision, I would expect some discussion of it outside the very narrow realm of parliamentary proceedings. Indeed, one could rightly ask who is calling Pepper v. Hart a landmark decision (a claim which currently appears to be unsourced). As for a case where an editor is demanding, on principle, that (when writing about court decisions) secondary sources must routinely be rejected in favour of primary sources, my first reaction is that said editor probably needs to re-read WP:PSTS and try to understand the sensible reasons why Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources as a matter of policy. And any blanket decision regarding what kinds of sources are (or aren't) appropriate for pages like this should, I think, be made by a consensus of project editors, rather than by a single intransigent editor — assuming in fact that this is what is going on (I can't say because I haven't investigated the matter personally). Richwales (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
First, yes he is edit warring. Second, of course the existing version wasn't great - that's precisely why I put in the (wordy, but) good research he'd done in half and asked him to integrate the rest. Third, Ironholds has to learn that his extensive treatises are not terribly useful - and certainly not more useful than a simple fact description, and a simple overview of the judgment. Fourth, I think the appropriate length of a block quote from a judgment is the same as found in any standard case and materials book. The judges always say it better. Fifth, Ironholds has a habit of referring to multiple articles and books for what a case itself says, because they are secondary sources. This is wrong. He has got the secondary sources rule wrong. The case itself - and the particular paragraph from the report (eg [1992] UKHL 3, [12]) is the proper reference for what the judgment or the facts of the case itself says. Readers do not want to look up 17 books and articles that Ironholds happened to have access to. They want to look at the judgment. Books and articles are ONLY relevant for giving opinions or reflections of the authors. Wikidea 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
And you, of course, aren't edit warring :P. We have links to the judgment; that should be sufficient to find what was said. Posting the entirety of a judgment is not necessarily easier for the reader, because you introduce a lot of irrelevancies that would not appear in the analysis (simply because they're irrelevant). Why exactly is a complete explanation of 1) the facts and 2) the law behind it "not terribly useful", particularly compared to your preferred style of a short summation of the facts with no explanation of the preceding law and a copypaste of the entire judgment. And ImperfectlyInformed, see this discussion, for example. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I never suggested copying a whole judgment. And who are you to say that anything a judge said is irrelevant? Wikidea 18:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it this way. Can the relevant, pertinent facts linked in with the analysis and what a law student (and lay person) would like to see be written out more efficiently using select quotations and standard prose, rather than a copypaste of the judgment? Yes. So why do we need to copy a large chunk of the judgment? I also note that you replaced a large chunk of information about the preceding hearings with your quote. In regards to the "reconvened as a 7-man panel"; this shows the importance of the case, since most are heard by 5 judges. Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
And for heaven's sake, don't be such a haughty, obnoxious jerk to make your passive aggressive comments in such an underhand way like the link above. That's truly pathetic, and I feel a little bit sorry for you. Wikidea 18:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry? ImperfectlyInformed said that "He's stubborn and sometimes mean, but he's also smart and prolific and I think you're assuming bad faith when you say you can't get along with him" - I was simply linking him to an example of why we don't get along. But thank you for proving my point for me. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't read this thread in detail, but I detect a query about how to organize the leads of articles. I've struggled with this for months. I was pretty proud when I came up with this solution, but I was absolutely ecstatic when I started doing this, and I really hope it catches on. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea! The main quibble is this; should we quote sections of judgments, or should we merely summarise the relevant bit with reference to primary/secondary sources? Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not the main "quibble". My concerns are all on Talk:Pepper v Hart, almost none of which have been answered. Morse v Frederick might be of an appropriate length for the needs of American students - I don't know. As I said, here is what I think is a good style for a particularly long article on a very important case: Carlill v Carbolic. I do know that Ironholds' version of Pepper v Hart has some good stuff in it, but messy, over worded and often with a veneer of looking like a good article, but the substance is very poor; the original style was far superior. Wikidea 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry?! The original style was two, unreferenced lines of facts which gave no legal context, a massive quote from the judgment (again, unreferenced) and a single line in the introduction (against MoS) about the impact. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with citing a state law from a published book of acts

I'd like to cite the act of the Ohio General Assembly that appears on this page, but I'm not exactly sure how to do it. Is there an indication given in the book that this act has a number other than "House Bill 67"? I can't find any such indication, and I really don't think that it's a good idea to cite an act that was signed into law by its number as a house bill. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Most of us (lawyers) use the Bluebook as the citation bible. Rules 13.2 and 13.4 in the BB cover legislative materials, unenacted bills, reports, documents, committee prints, and debates. You may find the citation style arcane (it is), but the specificity is for clarity.
    Example:
    — H.R. 3055, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. § 2 (1976).
    Yours will be something like:
    General Assembly of the State of Ohio, 64th Gen. Assembly, 1st Session, Special Acts. (1880).
    Cite it as "...(1880) (enacted)." with the period ater the parenthetical "enacted" if you're not just documenting legislative history but are citing it as a statute. Best to borrow a copy of the Bluebook from the library if you want to be sure to get it right. Sctechlaw (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

experimenting with new template, {{down arrow}}

See this thread at the village pump. If you like it, please start using it. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 08:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


New Wikipedia Editor needs some expert help

I am soliciting members of the WikiProject Law to lend a hand to a new editor User talk:Laurenasprooth whose first article Montana Justice Foundation was rapidly nominated for deletion here. I provided some off-wiki advice, but as I am not a law expert, I thought I might find some editors in this project to help with this article. It appears that there are sufficient sources for notability, but the new editor needs help in getting those integrated by more experienced editors. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm using a dinky little computer at the mo as I prepare to zoom off to America for a jurisprudence conference drinking binge, but it looks like the article will be kept. Once I'm back on Monday, I'll see what I can do to expand and properly reference the article. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Terri Schiavo case

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Calendar

In connection with the Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, and Revised Julian calendar articles, I would like to know if there is a list of what countries have formally adopted a calendar, and ideally, pointers to the legislation. There are many countries, such as Greece, which might have adopted the Gregorian calendar, or might have adopted the Revised Julian calendar, or might have delegated the choice of a calendar to the state religion. Since the latter two calendars happen to agree with each other for the time being, you can't tell by observing when things happened and how those events are dated in government documents.

In a similar vein, does anyone know how the United States, at the federal level, adopted the Gregorian calendar? Is it just on the basis of all the states having adopted it by statute or through recognition of statutes of the various colonial powers that controlled the states before their admission to the union? I'm pretty sure it isn't directly due to the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, because the federal government never recognized any British statutes, did it? Maybe it is on the basis that unless otherwise redefined in statute or regulation, words have their ordinary meaning, and the ordinary meaning of words like "March ninth, two thousand ten" is in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that the original states recognised British statutes pre-Revolution (unless contradicted by post-Revolution law). Maybe it wasn't initially a Federal thing? I'd advise asking User:Newyorkbrad or User:Dirtlawyer1, who are both practising American attorneys. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with a federal statute adopting the Gregorian calendar the way that, say, Congress has promulgated laws establishing the time zones. Since the United States Constitution contains Gregorian dates, both in the text and in the signing, I think it's always been just taken for granted. But I will try to do a little more poking around in the next day or two, and if I can find anything further, will add to this answer. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guys. One of you poked me for an "opinion" on the legal authority for the use of the Gregorian calendar in the United States and the continuing applicability of British statutes and the English common law on this side of the Pond. As a general proposition, English statutes and the common law, as they existed on July 4, 1776 in most instances, remain in effect except to the extent that they have been superseded by state statute or subsequent court precedent. That being said, however, I would caution you not to assume that any particular pre-1777 British statute or common law precedent is still applicable in any given one of the fifty states without express authority that references the specific English law or precedent for a variety of reasons.

Personally, I have practiced extensively in two states, Florida and Georgia, so I will confine my immediate comments to those two specific states for examples. The State of Florida expressly adopted the statutes and common law of "England," except to the extent contradicted by the subsequent laws of the United States and the State of Florida. Section 2.01, Fla. Stat., provides:

2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.--The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. [11]

There are other examples throughout the Florida Statutes that redundantly apply the same rule to particular areas of practice, e.g., trusts and estates, etc. The predecessor to Section 2.01 was adopted in 1829 by the territorial legislature before Floria was admitted to the Union in 1845.

Georgia being one of the original thirteen states, the General Assembly adopted a similar provision in 1784, the year after the Treaty of Paris acknowledged independence from the mother country. That original law is embodied in the current Official Code of Georgia Annotated in Section 1-1-10(c)(1), O.C.G.A., which provides in relevant part:

§ 1-1-10. Specific repealer; provisions saved from repeal
. . .
(c) The following specific laws and parts of laws are not repealed by the adoption of this Code and shall remain of full force and effect, pursuant to their terms, until otherwise repealed, amended, superseded, or declared invalid or unconstitutional:
. . .
(1) An Act for reviving and enforcing certain laws therein mentioned and adopting the common laws of England as they existed on May 14, 1776, approved February 25, 1784. (For the adopting Act of 1784, see Prince's 1822 Digest, p. 570; Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 721; and Code of 1863, Section 1, paragraph 6.)[12]

Like the Florida Statutes, the Official Code of Georgia Annotated is chock full of examples of redundant applications of the general principal to specific areas of the law. This appears to be the general pattern among the first thirteen as well as later states. Of the original thirteen, nine expressly adopted English statutes and the common law between 1776 and 1784, but the effective date of the adoption varied widely. There are several examples of states that adopted English law through the fourth year of James I's reign (Please explain that one, Ironholds!). BTW, while the significance of July 4, 1776 is obvious (Bugger off, George, and take your tax collectors with you!), I have absolutely no idea what the significance of May 14, 1776 is.

Bottom line: all of the States of the Union (with the exception of Louisiana, which was originally a French territory, and retains numerous state law differences from the other 49), have expressly or implicitly accepted the statutes of England and the common law (although the effective dates of such adoption vary widely). Since Britain and the Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar with a 1752 effective date, this does present an intellectual challenge for the legal authority for its mandated use in those states that adopted an English law effective date before 1752 (e.g. those that adopted English law through the fourth year of the reign of James I). I can find no authority for either Florida or Georgia expressly adopting the Gregorian calendar. I am guessing that it was just accepted----sort of like the names of the months and days of the week. Unlike the French Revolution, the American Revolution was in many ways not a radical one, but a conservative one----fought to preserve what the colonists perceived to be their rights already, not to impose radical changes on society beyond the form of the national government. Anyway, I am checking to see what I can find in the U.S. Code; perhaps there is something buried somewhere in the U.S.C. that specifically addresses the adoption of the Gregorian calendar. I'll get back to you on this. Must run now; this real estate lawyer is going to court this morning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You just wait, Dirtlawyer. When we spark a counter-revolution the interest on that tax is going to cripple you. Ironholds (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I can think of no present-day situation where the federal government would employ anything other than the Gregorian calendar, because all the states and territories were already using it when they joined/came under the control of/ were conquered by/ the United States. England adopted it in 1752, and the Roman Catholic countries much earlier. There may have been a period after the purchase of Alaska when the federal government ought to have used the Julian calendar, which was in use in Russia at the time of the Alaska purchase, but Alaska explicitly adopted the Gregorian calendar by statute long ago. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This is probably a question well suited for the reference desk, but I haven't been able to find it if it's in the U.S. Code. There are IRS statutes that come pretty close, but all of them presume the year and months of the Gregorian calendar. See 26 U.S.C. § 441(d) for an example. There are also explicit adoptions of the General Conference on Weights and Measures, which defines the second. It's conceivable that it is apart of that standard too. There's a quote I found of Ben Franklin talking about the change-over, so presumably there was no need to codify it, although I find it odd that it's never happened. It's quite possible it's in the public laws but hasn't been codified, in which case the US code searches wouldn't have found it. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Akmal Shaikh on hold

The GA review of the Akmal Shaikh article, which is tagged as being within the scope of this project, has been on hold for over 30 days. It is near to being passed, but the Akmal_Shaikh#Reaction section needs editing to reduce the amount of direct quotation as per Wikipedia:Quotations, and also to be trimmed in general to meet GA criteria 3(b): "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Any assistance in this matter would be appreciated. See Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 for more detail. (If you feel that the article does not fall under the scope of this project, please remove the project tag from the article talkpage). SilkTork *YES! 10:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has now passed. SilkTork *YES! 14:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pepper v Hart again

Started off well enough, with a test version I tweaked while Wikidea commented on his preferred changes, and I'm reasonably happy with the result. We now seem to be deadlocked, in that Wikidea isn't responding - either because he's "given up repeating himself" or he's been busy. Regardless, the end result is an article in the mainspace nobody is happy with. I'm getting a lot of positive responses to Talk:Pepper v Hart/test as compared to the current version - any opinions on implementing it directly, and fixing any issues through an uninvolved Good Article Review? Respond on the talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Could use some help on Birthright citizenship in the United States of America

See the talk page for that article under the heading "Unacceptable Sources"-69.143.48.114 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Free Speech, "The People’s Darling Privilege"

New article - could be a useful resource for articles within the scope of this WikiProject. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Community property

Please see Talk:Community property (a disambiguation page) for a discussion of whether there is a primary topic for this term; and if so, whether it is Community property (marriage) or Public property. TJRC (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of environmental lawsuits#Criteria for inclusion: overinclusive?

Your comments at Talk:List of environmental lawsuits#Criteria for inclusion: overinclusive? are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Cyber Rights

I have started a peer review on the article Cyber Rights, which was recently promoted to Good Article quality status. Feel free to provide feedback, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cyber Rights/archive1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing law topics

I've updated my list of missing law topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sociology of Law

I have expanded, revised and structured the entry on the Sociology of law which was previously classed as "less than a stub". It now needs to be reassessed and discussed. Please visit Sociology of law and comment.

FAC of Ashford v Thornton

Ashford v Thornton is now at FAC. This is the notorious 1818 Trial by Battle case. Reviews and comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

The following AfD may be of interest to editors here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sessions of the United States Supreme Court -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Attachment (law)

This article says attachment is a process by which a debtor's property is transferred to a creditor. Somewhere on the internet I found this:

The above seems to be another sense of the word attachment in law, different from that treated in this article. Should that be mentioned in the article too? Maybe in a hatnote linking to a different article dealing with that other concept? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, in the latter sense 'attachment' is being used as a term of art to mean that at a particular point in time the status quo changed. Specifically, something like jeopardy 'attaches' or occurs because a threshold has been met, whether in time, act, or other sense, whereas in property law, 'attachment', while also a change of status quo, has an additional meaning as you have surmised. Sctechlaw (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant requested move

Opinions would be appreciated at Talk:First_Amendment#Requested_move.2C_take_2 --Cybercobra (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Best evidence rule, and primary sources

Hi. I thought this might be a good place to raise the general question of best evidence rule/primary sources. In short, the issue as I see it is as follows.

In systems of law with which I am familiar, something akin to the "best evidence rule" exists. If we were to view sources used on wikipedia in that vein, it would in short say that primary sources are superior to secondary sources. The rationale: one plays a game of "telephone", the further one moves from the primary source. This thinking has been developed, reviewed, and fine-tuned over the centuries by many of our best legal minds.

In certain corners of wikipedia, however, lurk phraseology, developed by who-knows-how-few minds (and what their level), that suggests (to some) that: a) secondary sources are superior to primary sources; and b) primary sources should not be used.

For example, an editor has informed me that it is inappropriate for me to use as a source--for a textual statement as to what a defendant has been charged with in his indictment--the actual indictment (a primary source). I was told I had to replace the indictment with a secondary source. Why, for example, one might think that an Al Jazeerah article possibly written by a college stringer might be a better source for what the indictment says--than the actual indictment itself--I cannot begin to imagine.

Applying that thinking further -- if I wanted to reflect what the opinion was that was stated in a NY Times editorial (a primary source), I would have to look for the description of the editorial in a secondary source (think ... Electronic Intifada), and use that as my ref, rather than the editorial itself.

The same applies to statutes, in the editors' mind.

That strikes me as counter-intuitive, as well as at odds with centuries of legal thought as to what "evidence" is best (and yes, I understand that this is not a court of law, but the same principles are at work).

Thoughts? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The principle is that it is safer to use a reliable secondary source than a primary document. Why? Because primary documents sometimes require a degree of synthesis and original research. We have had this debate repeatedly with a couple of users; my standpoint is that in law articles, it is better to use secondary sources (like a textbook) than a primary source (like a trial transcript). Why? Priorities. In the trial transcript, the judge goes through every issue for legal purposes. Textbooks, on the other hand, are designed to inform; they boil the issues down and give further context. Ironholds (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Primary sources are often best for details; they can avoid typographical errors that sometimes creep into secondary sources. Secondary sources are better for getting the big picture. In the case of a statute, the statute itself is the best source for how it is worded, but a secondary source by a qualified author would be better for figuring out if the statute is actually in force; perhaps it has been declared invalid by a court, perhaps there is another statute that renders it moot, or perhaps it is superseded by a law or regulation from a higher government (e.g. a statute in a U.S. state being superseded by an Federal Communications Commission rule). Jc3s5h (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, good example. It is suggested that we use secondary sources when available, not primary ones (unless necessary), because they give the bigger and more academically learned (where I edit, anyway) picture. Simple as. Curiously, I wrote a Featured Article on the guy who coined the best evidence rule, and that's all secondary sources. Ironholds (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on some terrorism-case articles, and some terrorism-related statutes. I have 37,000-odd edits under my belt. While the "RSs" (and if you hang out at the RS Noticeboard, you will understand why this is the case – we do in fact call "publications" such as "Electronic Intifada" an RS) often are imprecise, and not infrequently wrong, as to what the indictment or the statute say, the indictment and statute themselves are of course never wrong. To rely on the imprecise written-by-a-college-stringer article, rather than the indictment, or to not reflect information if it is only in the indictment, strikes me as wrong-headed. Believe me, the Electronic Intifada writer can just as easily engage in synthesis and OR. Even more easily – he is not bound by wiki rules on those subjects. He may even be encouraged to engage in those.
It's also like saying that I can't use the 9/11 Report (a primary source) to say what is in the 9/11 Report ... but that I have to use some RS's approximation (words changed, to avoid copyright problems) of what the 9/11 Report says. That makes no sense to me.
I recognize Iron that you and I may be speaking slightly at cross-purposes, as I am focusing on the primary sources I am using (or seeking to use). On-wiki indictments, court orders, legal opinions, the 9/11 Report, and the like, that other editors can also look at. Off-wiki trial transcripts that only person x can see may well pose other issues, but often those would relate to other editors' inability to check the source. The same can of course take place with books that are not on-wiki.
I think we would lose a great deal if the position were to be that of not allowing use of primary sources for information, and my suggestion is that we should clarify any wiki rules so that (as in the described situations) we can use the indictment, court order, legal opinion, and 9/11 Report as refs. I would be fine with a suggestion that we also use a secondary source where one is available, if that would help address your issue. BTW, I should add that back in the early 1980s I wrote both primary sources (federal legal opinions) and secondary sources (law review articles), so I respect both -- but just as both cited to both legal opinions and law review articles, I would suggest so should we.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Part of the confusion is on terminology and what weight should be given to each. Let's define these:
  1. Primary sources are the law itself - trial transcripts, deposition digests, an allocation questionnaire, court decisions/opinions, writs, orders, statutes, decrees, rules, and regulations.
  2. Secondary sources are those references that are based on the law or interpret the law - newspapers, magazines, and law review articles; textbooks, treatises, form books, etc.
  3. Tertiary sources explain the law through use of other sources, such as dictionaries and encyclopedias (like Wikipedia). The weight should be on secondary sources that are layperson-friendly. Primary sources tend to be too longwinded, too literal, or too obtuse; but they can be great sources for deeper reading. I think that, if possible, one should cite both. However, primary sources for law sometimes appear on less-than-reliable attack or partisan websites. Good examples, IMHO, of legal articles that use a mixture of primary and secondary references are Energy law and New York energy law. Even in a scientific article, it is good to cite the original source and a lay explanation from a popular science magazine or the New York Times. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That's helpful. To give a sense for what I am struggling with, an editor is following me seeking to delete primary sources form articles I'm working on that involve terrorists. All the sources are available on-line to the general public. They include indictments, complaints, Department of Justice press releases, court-ordered forensic psychiatric evaluations, and a court order finding a defendant competent to stand trial. The editor is militating for deletion of all of them from the article.
I think (for lack of a better term, the "Bearian Rule") makes sense. That would be something like: "Original, primary sources -- such as indictments and court orders -- are helpful sources, as they provide the source that secondary sources then summarize or construe. Secondary sources, similarly, are helpful in that they are lay-person friendly. If possible, one should cite both." Would something like that (feel free to revise/suggest revisions) have legs?
  • I'd support that, with the proviso that where material is covered by both kinds of sources, the secondary sources are preferred (lay-person friendly) excluding situations where they factually conflict, in which case the primary source takes priority for establishing what is/is not true. Ironholds (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've been working on the Vaporware article this week. It isn't listed under this wikiproject, but there is a section in it (Vaporware#Antitrust_allegations) that talks about antitrust and securities fraud laws. I'm pretty sure the info in that section is accurate based on the sources, but I don't know much about law in general. Could somebody who knows what they're talking about look at that section and tell me if its wrong, or if the wording doesn't make any sense? Your help is appreciated. —Sebquantic (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  • You're pretty close. I wrote a research paper on it when I was in law school, so I'll dig it out of the archives and have a look see for some more cites. Sctechlaw (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Family law

I would like to propose a child project for Family law. There is currently a Family law article but I don't think it's part of the law project, and the article needs to be rewritten. What's the process for starting or nominating a new child project? Minor4th (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Project council, or alternately we could create a taskforce. Really you'd need to show there's a core group of editors focused on the area. Ironholds (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I'll just start by editing that article and see what kind of interest there is. Minor4th (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Guantanamo habeas corpus - expert help needed

Now there are about 65 Guantanamo related habeas corpus articles on Wikipedia. While there are a few articles that show quality there are tons of other that are without context, sometimes confusing, solely based on primary sources or from questionable notability. As there are now so many, mostly added by one single editor who has i think no background in law - i do not doubt the good intention of all the editor who have added these articles and information - but i think it has become difficult to find valuable contextual information that our readers expect from an encyclopedia sure all information comes from WP:RS but mostly primary sources and without sufficient context and from questionable notability and sometimes presented in a confusing way. I would appreciate if you could have a look at these articles and the category and topic as a whole and give your opinion and help where to merge, delete or improve this content.

Cheers! IQinn (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

After taking a look at a number of them, it seems that nearly all contain only a single sentence regarding the actual subject of the article - and in most cases only pointing out that the subject is a habeas case that was filed. Additional information is typically redundant mentions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
As such, notability hasn't been established for the majority of the above articles. My suggestion would be to fold them into a subsection of a suitable article, perhaps the above mentioned Military Commissions Act.
Hartboy (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I am responsible for most of these articles, created shortly after Boumediene v. Bush reopended the captives access to the civilian justice system. At the time I thought more references would emerge. And, in most cases I can see now I was mistaken.
Some humans in the real world, and some wikipedia contributors don't acknowledge their mistakes, and won't clear up after themselves. I do my best to clean up my mistakes. Some of these articles were {{prod}}ded about two weeks ago. This reminded me of them. I re-assessed them, realized that the references I thought would appear hadn't. I decided that I would userify those for which I was the sole contributor I would userify, to make available for cannibalization into a larger article.
As a courtesy I informed User:Iqinn a week ago that I was doing this, shortly afterwards, because I saw that they were making lots of cosmetic edits to articles that were probably going to end up being userified and cannibalized, and I didn't want them to feel their time had been wasted. In the last ten days I have userified 21 articles for which I couldn't find good additional references.
I wouldn't want anyone in this forum to think that their time had been wasted thinking about a problem I think is already being adequately addressed. Geo Swan (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You want to delete or userfy all of these articles? What are your criteria for what article should be deleted/userfied? I know you often work alone on topics but i think the main strength of Wikipedia is it's large community with all kinds of special knowledge and people with special knowledge in law are highly needed here. I think there are valid and important topics and i think it is worth to have some expert input first to see which one are worth to keep and to improve and witch one should be merged or deleted. I found the comment of user Hartboy already very helpful and i would appreciate further input from the community on the listed articles and the whole topic. IQinn (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't deleted any of these articles. Nor do I plan to delete any of them.
For these articles I first checked the revision history. If anyone else had contributed intellectual content, I left it and reviewed the next article. For those for which I was the sole contributor of intellectual content I did a web search. If it looked like good new references had emerged, like in Kiyemba v. Bush, I added them to the article, and moved on to the next article.
Those for which I did not immediately find good new references, and to which no one else had added new intellectual content, I saw as candidates for userification, for later merging, and I have userified several dozen.
Yes, in theory, if I left them other contributors who thought the articles were too weak to stand on their own might have decided to cannibalize what they saw as the good parts, and merge them. But these articles have been in article space for a year and a half, and no one has shown any interest in doing so. All the other contributors who thought some of these articles were too weak to stand on their own have simply nominated them for deletion. Are you saying you want to collaborate in merging these articles?
If you have a genuine interest in collaborating on merging these articles, why don't you lay out your thoughts as to how this would be done? You can find a list of those I have userified at User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/habeas.
Meanwhile I think I should go on, and continue to userify as per above, because, first, the individuals who {{prod}}ded them expect me to do so. Second, if any of them are nominated for deletion in the future it would be reasonable for the nominator and those participating in the discussion to expect me to defend their continued presence in article space. Given the lack of emergence of new references for most of them, I can't do so. Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Seizure

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Convulsion_and_seizure_same_thing a discussion on merging, disambiguating, and linking various "seizure" articles. This may be of interests to editors here.User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move at State Attorney General

A move request has been made at Talk:State Attorney General#Requested move, an article in this WikiProject. -Rrius (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Links to a law firm at Asset protection?

Could those with experience editing law-related article please assist with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business#Asset_Protection_Page? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_10"