Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 18

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Articles about individual Titles of the US Code

Articles, like Title 1 of the United States Code, are currently stubs. I did mention this at WT:USA, but I would also need help from any of you members interested. I was thinking of proposing deletion, but I want to discuss first. --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would you propose deletion? postdlf (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't see some individual US Codes as prominent or "notable", despite the notable United States Code. ...Ah, I didn't know that Internal Revenue Code is part of US Code. Either Title 25 of the United States Code (Indians) needs work or to be redirected to Native Americans, perhaps? --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It needs work. Every Title has the potential to be developed further. Even as is though, it functions as an index to notable acts and topics in U.S. law, many of which have yet to be written. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Even a "notable" topic may be part of another notable topic or not need an article. I'll notify other Projects about individual Codes. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a non sequitur to what I said. And feel free to add notices about this discussion at other relevant projects, but if you instead mean to hop around other projects starting new and separate discussions everywhere (and this is now your second thread), that would just be a confusing waste of time and smack of WP:FORUMSHOPping. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • All right, bad idea, although I did say it to attract reaction. Still, expanding each page isn't easy. MOS:LAW isn't adequate about it, methinks. --George Ho (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Adequate about what? MOS:LAW is fine and does not need to be changed. I'm afraid to ask what is not adequate. GregJackP Boomer! 06:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
As I already said in the discussion occurring on WikiProject United States: "We should expand [the articles] further[, not delete them]]. There are countless sources referencing each Title of the US code; all of them are indisputably notable subjects, even if their articles are not well developed at the present time." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a dissenting opinion. Any Wikipedia article must be based on reliable sources. Although there are a few exceptions (the Internal Revenue Code, the Bankruptcy Code, and the Copyright Act come to mind), in my experience most of the available sources discuss individual laws, not the code titles into which they are codified. It would be quite unusual to find any source that analyzes or meaningfully discusses an entire title of the Code (again, with a few exceptions that do deserve their own articles) as a discrete body of work. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There has to be more information about each title than just the statutes codified therein. For example, how and when was the decision made to create each title? Why is the title dealing with Native Americans numbered 25, and when was it decided that this topic should have its own title? bd2412 T 18:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It's numbered 25 because "Indians" came between "Hospitals" and "Internal Revenue". But I doubt you'll find a Congressional committee report, or memoirs of one of the statutory revisors, that discusses the principles of alphabetical order. :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Still, there had to be a decision that "Indians" get their own Title, as opposed to being lumped into another Title. bd2412 T 18:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps there's some confusion over the article scope. There is obviously a body of literature on the subject matter under any of the titles, even if the sources about a title (as a legal or literary work) are few. Even so, there are always records of the various debates and committee meetings which were instrumental to the creation and revision of a code title. Examples here list 249 works that relate to the subject of title 25, US laws on Indians.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The link you provided actually proves my point. As far as I can tell, not one of those 249 works discusses Title 25 of the U.S. Code as a whole; they either discuss U.S. policy towards Native Americans generally, or specific acts of Congress that are codified in Title 25. To me, having an article about Title 25 makes about as much sense as having an article about Volume 6 of the World Book Encyclopedia, just because there are abundant sources that refer to one or more of the topics that happen to have articles contained in that volume. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: The discussion for that would fall more appropriately within the scope of a discussion of the history of codifying federal law, and the ongoing process of deciding where portions of a new statute is codified. While I can see some logic behind a list or index type article, there's just not much to say about the individual titles. Articles on each USC title would be along the lines of an article on each Dewey Decimal class: While a list or index article would probably be great for either subject, there's just not much to say about the class or title as independent from the classification system generally. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Help needed

Project members with an understanding of criminal law are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive225#Distinction between presuming a murder and presuming a murderer?. In particular, is it reasonable to describe an event as murder even before anyone has been found guilty of murder? WWGB (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Domestic violence against men article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence against men/Archive 1#Primary sources?. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. The question deals with whether WP:MEDRS applies to an article that does not involve biomedical issues, or conversely, applies to an article dealing primarily with sociological / legal issues. GregJackP Boomer! 20:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Law categories

I suggest adding Intellectual Property and Trade Regulation to the basic categories such as Torts, Property, etc. I assume Trade Regulation would include Antitrust. Comment? PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.

Mahitgar (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Systemic changes of citation style to Bluebook

So, several articles I watch (court cases about IP law, mostly) are being changed to Bluebook style. While this is of course widely used in legal writing and is familiar to those in the field, it is arcane to people outside the field. This is not something I favor, but I don't work widely in law articles, and wanted to get input from the community on whether Bluebook citation style should become more widely used in articles about law. (I would just as soon see it banned, but again, I don't work that much in this field) Just opening a discussion, and will get out of the way. Some examples:

These also include "notices" in the references section about using Bluebook. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bluebook citation style is integral and essential to legal scholarship. Signals and other explanatory devices used by the Bluebook style allow readers to understand how sources support legal arguments and reach legal conclusions; this is a critical component of legal scholarship because it allows readers to understand developments and splits within legal authority. The Bluebook citation style is actually fairly easy to learn -- Just follow the link at the top of the articles' talk pages. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, several scholars have observed that the Bluebook's rigid hierarchy for citations to legal authority make the Bluebook "the book that ends arguments," while other citation systems perpetuate arguments. See Eric Shimamoto, To Take Arms Against a See of Trouble: Legal Citation and the Reassertion of Hierarchy, 73 UMKC L. Rev. 443, 446-47 (2004) -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what Notecard says, above (I will comment separately on Jytdog's factual assertions), as to the merits of Bluebook vs. other styles. In addition, the a b c d e f ... style that Jytdog wants to use for case citations creates misleading citations with incorrect references to the individual pages where a fact or paraphrase is supported in the opinion. User:GregJackP docuemnted an enormous number of mistakes Jytdog creatged by his use of abcdef... style in the Talk Page for DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Part of the problem is that Jytdog does not understand the Bluebook citation system. For example, looking at individual articles:
  • DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, the original citation style was Bluebook, see here. Jytdog, without consensus changed the style to a named reference system, here, which showed that every quote cited from the case came from page 1259. It is akin to putting "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" in an article and then citing it to page 54, instead of page 3, where it appears. When questioned on it, he said a person could use the browser "find" function, which completely ignores those readers who may be trying to look it up in the actual case reporter at page 1259.
  • J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., is there a problem with this article? I don't see any issues.
  • In re Alappat, in this case, Jytdog claimed that the article was an essay and original research. A discussion on the talk page came to a far different conclusion. Myself, Minor4th, PraeceptorIP, Notecardforfree, and Postdlf all came to the consensus that the article was fine. I'm not sure whether Mackensen was good with it or not, I was under the impression that he was satisfied at the end, but it wasn't explicit. Jytdog seemed to be the only one who was opposed. Note that 4 of the 5 editors in support are lawyers (and possibly the 5th, but I'm not sure) and Praeceptor is a subject matter expert on IP law.
  • In re Bilski involved the addition of the {{Bluebook}} template to the talkpage after subsequent editors changed the original Bluebook style to a hodgepodge of styles. See the discussion here.
  • Again, Jytdog was the only one howling about the issue, everyone else was in agreement that it was originally Bluebook.
The Bluebook template (or similar noticeboxes) are used to inform editors what citation style is being used. It is helpful when articles are going thru GA review (see here or here) or FA review (here). They serve the same purpose as the {{Parenthetical referencing editnotice}} template.
I'm sorry, but the issue here seems to be one of competence in the use of the Bluebook style. Jytdog states that he would prefer that it be banned. That's fine, he's entitled to his own opinion, but that has about as much chance of happening as the likelihood that WP:MEDRS is going to be dumped. GregJackP Boomer! 22:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Bluebook is the preferred style for articles about court cases (per Notecardforfree's comment above). I'd also like to point out that Jytdog's opening post is a bit misleading. On the articles he cited, Bluebook citation style was already being used - sometimes in conjunction with other styles, or no style. These are not articles that were changed to Bluebook from another cohesive citation style. Minor4th 23:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, it appears that on all the articles cited by Jytdog, Bluebook citation style was the original style being used. I do not think Jytdog's post accurately states an issue. Minor4th 23:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that he doesn't recognize what is and is not Bluebook style. See the discussion on the In re Bilski talk page. On the DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com he not only went to a named reference style, but he deleted all of the string cites (which I haven't been able to fix yet). You can't have named references in a string cite, and Bluebook uses string cites. Saddly, I don't think that he knows what he is doing with Bluebook refs. GregJackP Boomer! 23:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the article-specific issues above, and I'm inclined to think that articles about US law should follow Bluebook except where doing so would conflict with broader Wikipedia principles ... but on that note, there are some pretty substantial conflicts.
One systematic problem is that Wikipedia is geared to a general audience, and unlike many other citation standards (APA, MLA, etc.), Bluebook cites are opaque to anyone who hasn't been specifically trained on them. In a citation like "183 U.S. 1892, 1905 (1913)" (which I just made up, but is pretty representative) -- how is any lay reader going to know what that's even a citation to, let alone which of those is the page number? Another problem is that Bluebook often doesn't even follow its own rules consistently, which leads to pointless circular debates over minutiae (see the recent kerfuffle over whether to include "Inc." in the name of the article about some case or other). And a third and especially pervasive problem is Bluebook's abbreviation fetish, which can make Bluebook citations challenging to parse for even the experienced user. Just yesterday I caught myself misreading "N.D." as "Northern District" rather than "Supreme Court of North Dakota" while rifling through case citations. (And what percentage of lay readers would be able to guess either of those readings, even in context?) Since Wikipedia is not paper, why on earth would we use these opaque abbreviations rather than spelling things out? To take a random example plucked from the Bluebook's Table T13 (which spreads over more than 20 pages in the 19th edition), why would we puzzle and confound our readers with a citation to J.L. & Com. rather than citing the Journal of Law and Commerce? -- Visviva (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not the first time I've seen this kind of confusion, but 183 U.S. 1892, 1905 (1913) is not written the way it is because of the Bluebook. That's how you cite to a court case in a reporter, with the abbreviation identifying the reporter, the first number the volume of the reporter, the second number the first page on which the opinion appears, and the third number (after the comma) a cite to a specific page in that opinion. AFAIK there isn't any real variation in how that's handled across different citation systems (this was demonstrated in a discussion not too long ago, if anyone can dig up a link to illustrate). And the court abbreviations do not change either (N.D.N.Y. is never "North Dakota-New York", whatever that would even mean; it is always the Northern District of New York); to change that would be to make up our own citation format. So whether we use Bluebook or not will not change how we cite to court cases at all. One thing I like to do to make case citations easier to understand for those readers who are not yet familiar with them is to wikilink them, for example Smith v. Smith, 123 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D.N.Y. 2015).

The only real variations between Bluebook and other citation formats probably involve which words we abbreviate in case names and how (such as Commission -> Comm'n), and maybe how the titles of journals are abbreviated as well. I'm personally much more lax on those rules, favoring clarity or how the court itself has given a short form name, but even following the strict letter of the style can be made much less confusing by wikilinking, if it's a case or journal for which we have an article. postdlf (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with postdlf's remarks regarding case citations -- this citation style is fairly ubiquitous across many different disciplines. Nor is it any more confusing than MLA's conventions for listing volume, issue, and page numbers of journals or multi-volume books. Visviva, I disagree with your characterization of Bluebook's "abbreviation fetish." All citation styles abbreviate in unique ways, and Bluebook's abbreviation system is far more predictable than other citation systems. To give you an example of how this works in other citation systems, the article for Benzene cites to "J Toxicol Environ Health" and "Int J Occup Environ Health" (among others).
As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the Bluebook style is integral to legal scholarship because it allows readers to trace the development of legal arguments, and it also allows authors to explain splits in interpretation or authority. I don't know of any other citation system that allows authors this kind of precision when citing sources. Indeed, Bluebook is far more appropriate than other citation systems (for law articles) in an encyclopedia because it provides readers a clearer background understanding of how legal doctrines developed and why judges or scholars rely on specific sources to support their conclusions. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Visviva: Interesting, but getting away from the controversy. There was a dispute aired here about two ways of citing cases (not a much bigger picture). One way cites 'Jones v, Smith', 123 F.3d 456, 789 (13th Cir. 2016) ONE TIME as just shown, and all the other 20 or 30 times, no new cite--just a b c d e f g ... aa ab ac. The other way cites each time to the particular page, something like this: 123 F.3d at 458, then 123 F.3d at 461, then 123 F.3d at 464, ... The topic is which format to use for case cites in particular situations (such as what format the article first used). I don't think what you are talking about has a bearing on this. To the extent that it does, however, what you say indicates that the second citation example is more helpful because it conveys more information. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Another observation about case citations... In this wondrous modern age in which we live, no one has to actually consult the print volumes of the United States Reports. In the digital world, "347 U.S. 483 (1954)" is nothing more than an alphanumeric code unique to that particular opinion, so you don't even need to know what the parts of that string of characters mean to make use of it to locate the original text. Just copy and paste it into Google and match it up with the various sources online that provide case opinions. The same would go for a journal abbreviation. Even being a lawyer and familiar with Bluebook, I'd have no idea what title "Ala. C.R. & C.L. L. Rev." referred to just by reading it, but the second hit in a Google search tells me. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don't think the issue here is Bluebook (although if it was, I would align myself with Postdlf & Notecardforfree's positions). The problem is that there is one user who does not understand Bluebook or it's citation system. It's not unusual, many very smart people are not really versed on fields outside of their own. I don't edit articles like Benzene (and couldn't tell you the difference between it and Benzine, although I'm sure that the difference between an "e" and an "i" are significant). The reason I don't is because I am not competent in that area. That's the issue here.

The question is how do we solve the problem?

  • We can offer to have someone mentor Jytdog in Bluebook citation style, if he would be agreeable to learn.
  • We can see if someone will develop Bluebook citation templates, like the CS1 or Harvard templates. There would need to be a short cite template as well.
  • We can ignore this, and just keep an eye on the articles in order to clean up any mistakes.

The one thing that we need to make clear is that Bluebook is an acceptable citation source for WP:LAW articles, and using a banner to help editors recognize that is not a bad thing. GregJackP Boomer! 02:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I favor bluebook citation style and I like postdlf's suggestion of resolving ambiguity by wikilinking. This format is technical language of a sort, and just because people don't understand it doesn't mean we dumb down citation... we can wikilink not just things like F.Supp, but also N.D. or whatever. Wikilinks are a beautiful thing and a solution for both sides. (That said, I personally don't use smallcaps in my real-world legal writing and am not necessarily going to demand they be used, but all the standard citation is critical) Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • To be maybe a bit more clear, I have a few concerns with Bluebook and the way it has been implemented.
First, some more context. As I acknowledged in my OP, I very much acknowledge that competence is required in Wikipedia. I am not a lawyer, but I work with patent attorneys and other kinds of lawyers every day in my job and have done so for ten years, and I make business judgements about what I want them to accomplish for me - those judgements need to be grounded in what is possible and so I have come to know a lot about intellectual property and other kinds of law. Not at the level of a practicing lawyer, of course; that is why we hire them. I don't like to make disclosures like that, but due to the personal attacks that GregJackP and his pal Minor4h and Praceptor keep making against me, that I don't know what I am talking about, I am making that now. With a sense of disgust. And I'll add that it is clear based on edits and talk discussions by GregJackP, that I know more about patent law than he does, since he has written frankly ignorant things about it (like starting an RSN on whether Patently-O is a reliable source for patent law, and failing to understand the thrust of Praceptor's argument at the talk page of Bowman. Ignorance is not a bad thing - everybody has limits to what they know. But claiming that he knows more about patent law than I do because he is a lawyer is baseless and more importantly, profoundly un-Wikipedian). So I'll say here in front of everyone - GregJackP, back off on the competence thing.
They have tried to use my lack of familiarity with Bluebook in a frankly bad faith effort to exclude my voice from law articles. That is part of my objection to insistence on use of this citation system.
    • Outside of the interpersonal dispute level, two important, functional things:
    • I have added hyperlinks to citations to journals and court cases that are are freely available online, and GregJackP and Praeceptor have actually deleted the URLs in the name of Bluebook, which to me is a bad practice. Why anybody would think it is a good thing for the encyclopedia to make it harder to VERIFY content is beyond me (especially in light of the extreme abbreviations). If Bluebook demands exclusion of hyperlinks, then we should exclude Bluebook from Wikipedia, or if formal Bluebook excludes hyperlinks, Wikipedia Bluebook should explicitly promote their use.
    • The other thing, is that in several instances, Bluebook citations have actually been used to make WP:SYN arguments. This is apparently normal in legal writing, but this is not OK in Wikipedia per WP:OR. My efforts to address this, for example at In re Alappat (where I have more work to do, describing the problems), have been "countered" with criticism that I am simply not competent in the citation style. If the citation style is going to invite editors to generate policy-violating content, then the citation style should be disallowed, or warnings should be provided in our page describing the citation style, to not use it in that way, here in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles =/= law journal articles.
    • If WP:LAW says that the citation is valuable and we should maintain it (and I am hearing that it definitely is considered valuable), I am all for that and will certainly learn it, but those two issues at least should be addressed. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • "If the citation style is going to invite editors to generate policy-violating content, then the citation style should be disallowed..." I'm not understanding this point at all. Could you post diffs on the use of citations to produce SYNTH so I can see what you're talking about, and on the deletion of the URLs? postdlf (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
On the SYN thing, quickly, just have a look at the lead of In re Alappat (which is not a WP:LEAD) and footnote 2. This is very clearly the product of an expert legal mind and we are very very lucky to have PraeceptorIP contributing here; it is not how WP articles are constructed however. I was trying to work with Pracaeptor to help them see how WP articles work (how they are different from law journal articles) when GregJackP started climbing all over me, thinking I was attacking Praeceptor. I was not. On the deleting URLs, an example here. There are more of each but I have day-job work to do now and can provide more later. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that URL shouldn't have been removed, but I don't see how that's a Bluebook issue. The edit was converting the journal reference into our standard Wikipedia "cite journal" template, it makes no mention of Bluebook in the edit summary, and it actually unpacked the abbreviated journal title into the full length rather than Bluebook abbreviation. I think that removal was accidental (particular since an accessdate field was filled in that would only have relevance to an online source), but in any event it was not in any way removed "in the name of Bluebook".

I also don't see how that lead (whatever other flaws it may have) or footnote 2 are SYNTH, nor what it would have to do with Bluebook. The quoted sources in footnote 2 support exactly the statement for which they are being used, that the Federal Circuit abandoned that particular legal test. You can't get more on point for that than the State Street Bank quote from that very court. If your problem is with the "see also" cite to the journal article, it should be clear from the explanation at Citation signal#See also why that signal was appropriate to use there, and the lengthy quote that follows is of analysis that expressly supports the same point as the case cite before it. So no SYNTH that I can remotely detect. Regardless, even if we assume it's problematic in its current form, I again don't see how Bluebook is relevant, or how the Bluebook citation form somehow drove the content there. Bluebook did not invent the "see also" citation signal. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with postdlf's comments regarding WP:SYN. Jytdog, I think you are fundamentally mistaken about the purpose of signals and string citations. These are not used to synthesize information for the purposes of original research; rather, they are used to illustrate how multiple sources support the proposition that is asserted in the article or to illustrate how a judge or scholar reached a legal conclusion. Occasionally, signals are used to illustrate splits of authority or to contrast alternative points of view. This level of precision and transparency supports fundamental policies of WP:NPOV and WP:RSUW. There are many articles in wikipedia that use multiple sources to support a proposition (see, e.g., claims about Barack Obama's place of birth, claims that New Horizons flew to Pluto, and claims that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK). Citing multiple authorities that each independently support a proposition is not original research. Nor is footnote 2 in In re Alappat SYNTH or original research. We discussed that ad nauseam on the talk page for that article, but to reiterate our consensus, the citations appropriately summarize sources in a way that is neither original research nor essay.
The level of precision used in Bluebook citations is in full compliance with WP:REF -- indeed, they allow readers to clearly trace sources used to support legal conclusions and contrasting authority. If you have specific examples of citations that you think are problematic, by all means bring them to our attention, but you have offered no evidence to support your conclusion that Bluebook is somehow fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia policy. Citing to one or two examples to support your arguments is a fallacy (see Proof by example). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog says "Praeceptor ha[s] actually deleted the URLs in the name of Bluebook, which to me is a bad practice." The factual part of that statement is incorrect. I do not delete URLs in the name of Bluebook or otherwise. (For one thing, Bluebook does not ask you to delete URLs.) What I (I hope uniformly) do often is to change a footnote reference in some other citation format (such as a bare URL) to the format [htpp://www.Jones.com Title of referenced item], which then appears as Title of referenced item. I would never intentionally delete a URL (unless the link is already broken, in which case I would delete the broken link and try to find a new link). Jytdog, please try to be more careful in your accusations. Thank you.

By the way I concur in Postdlf & Notecardforfree's positions stated above. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I just want to weigh in to add my support for using Bluebook style on articles about court cases or case-heavy legal doctrines. The Bluebook is the standard for legal writing, and the readers most interested in reading most of our articles about these matters will be those steeped in the Bluebook. bd2412 T 18:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled. Is Bluebook not a U.S.-centric style? Wikipedia is written for a wp:WORLDWIDE readership. Asking seven billion people to follow the practice of less than 5% does not make a lot of sense. Bluebook might make sense in articles that are only of interest to a domestic U.S. readership of legal scholars, but otherwise the style used should be far more generally comprehensible. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that per MOS:LAW, the citation style depends on the jurisdiction that is discussed in the article. Consequently, sources that discuss United States law will use the Bluebook while sources discussing English law will likely use the Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities. I have occasionally come across articles that use state-specific style guides (e.g. the California Style Manual). This discussion arose because Jytdog "wanted to get input from the community on whether Bluebook citation style should become more widely used in articles about law." It looks like the consensus here is that for U.S. legal articles, Bluebook should be used. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The only time a citation style is a factor is in the title of a legal article. MOS:LAW states that the title will depend on the legal citation style in use in that jurisdiction, so U.K. cases are based on Oxford (OSCLA), Canada on McGill, etc. Any citation style may be used in the article itself. GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, <sigh>, OK, addressing your comments:

  • I think you have misunderstood some of my concern about competence. It primarily deals with your knowledge of legal citation (Bluebook) and only to a much lesser extent your legal knowledge. You've admitted that you would need to learn Bluebook, which would take care of the competence issue as far as that is concerned. The other is nowhere near as concerning as the first, and is certainly not enough to tell you to go elsewhere to edit. No, the other issue is when multiple, experienced editors in a field tell you something, you do not listen. This is what several editors have mentioned to you recently.
  • I did not omit the URL intentionally, but was taking the cite from a bare URL to a CS1 template, not a Bluebook cite. The Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article was never a Bluebook article and is not one now. Had I been doing a Bluebook cite, I would typically link the URL to the article title, like this one, where I converted a bare URL to a Bluebook cite.
  • I also don't make any claims that I understand the details and intricacies of patent law. I don't practice in that field. That means I'm also not familiar with blogs which are reliable sources in that field, so I listed it and deferred to Praeceptor and BD when they said it was reliable. I do, however, know how to read an opinion and know the difference between synthesis and summarizing content.
  • Finally, again addressing your refusal to listen to other editors. The In re Alappat article has been discussed over and over again about synth and original research, but you don't hear that. You need to drop the stick. It is neither synth nor OR, and you are the only one against many in this discussion.

No one wants to keep you out of legal articles, so long as you don't disrupt the articles. That means if consensus goes against you, you accept it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi, back from my busy day, and can give more time to this.
    • First, as I noted above, I am hearing the view of this project that Bluebook style is preferred for US law articles. Great. I will learn it.
    • Second, glad to hear that URLs are fine in Bluebook. Great.
    • Last, Notecardforfree you left this note on the Talk page of In re Alapatt, where you wrote to me that "The citation in the footnote is proper (and encouraged) according to the Bluebook, which uses "signals" and "string citations" to explain the authority upon which Judge Archer relied." This statement was astonishing to me. What you wrote there, seems to me, to be an almost verbatim description of WP:SYN - it seems to me that a Wikipedia editor cannot explain the authority upon which Judge Archer replied by constructing that footnote, and that you were saying that this is completely fine, per Bluebook. This is the kind of thing I keep finding in Bluebook footnotes. I get it, that this is fine legal writing for a law journal article or perhaps a brief. It seems like SYN to me. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Jytdog, your argument relies upon the flawed premise that the footnote reached or implied "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (quoting WP:SYN). That is not the case. The article (and accompanying footnotes) summarized the conclusion reached by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The footnote then provided the authority that the Federal Circuit relied upon to reach its conclusion. If the article reached a conclusion that was not directly stated in any source, then I would agree with you, but that it not the case. Providing a summary of how the Court reached its conclusion is not SYNTH because it does not produce a new conclusion unsupported by sources.
      • I will also remind you that using signals and string citations for the purposes of explanation or to explain sources upon which other authorities rely is not SYNTH. Furthermore, SYNTH is not a rigid rule, and "'coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems' has been described as 'the essence of the NPOV process'" (quoting Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not). Providing a summary of the evidence or authorities upon which a source relied (or simply illustrating a split of authority) is helpful to readers because it allows them to understand (1) that the source did not reach a conclusion out of thin air and (2) that reasonable minds may differ on that point. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Notecardforfree. I hear you on that - summarizing complex material is a place where competence is required and where experts' contributions are highly valued here. I have myself been criticized by inexpert editors in the health/medicine space struggling to understanding the WP policy basis on which I summarized clinical trial results... so I am very sympathetic to what you are saying! Somewhere, there is a line between summary and SYN. It can be hard to define.
What I am trying to say, is that the Bluebook style appears to be very prone to SYN - to constructing arguments as you do signal and string. In the case we discussed on the Talk page (here) what is going on in that footnote, is an argument that the PTO and the dissenting judge were "correct". This is what the Aftermath section also argues (which gives great WEIGHT to Praeceptor's own article which makes the same argument, and which he has been arguing similarly for years in journals etc) and which all also fits well with today's legal Bilski/Mayo/Alice atmosphere. But that footnote is still making an argument which is what is bugging me. It is really great and subtle legal writing - very persuasive. But not what we do here, where a citation is just a citation (and a cigar is just a cigar) In my view. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog - I just looked at your linked section and the footnotes you are talking about. That is not synth - it is a summary statement of the dissent and the sources cited in the dissent. There is no original argument or persuasion going on here - it simply states what the dissent says. Minor4th 02:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, with regard to the footnotes discussed at the talk page for In re Alappat, we came to a consensus that article provided an accurate summary of the facts and legal issues in dispute. As Minor4th explained, there was no synth in those footnotes. Nor could I find a single example of an occasion in which the article makes an assertion that was not made by another source. To me, it looks like the Aftermath section simply summarizes the observations of legal scholars and later judicial decisions. A reader of any survey of scholarship may infer that one theory is more widely accepted than another (and certainly we should be careful to avoid issues of WEIGHT), but I do not think that the article synthesizes or implies that any perspective is more correct than another.
I agree that a blanket list of sources to support an implicit original conclusion may be SYNTH, but that is not what signals and string citations are used for in Blubook style. Signals and string citations are used to trace sources upon which authorities rely and to juxtapose splits of authority. If a footnote produced an original conclusion unsupported by sources, then I would agree that there would be problems. However, even if you were to show us an example or two of where this happens in Bluebook, the conclusion that Bluebook is more "prone to SYNTH" than other citation systems does not follow from that evidence. I agree with you that original research is bad, but Bluebook does not enable SYNTH any more than any other citation style. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Notecardforfree, thanks for talking. I hear you that the use of Bluebook in WP doesn't allow SYN and I have heard everybody that Bluebook doesn't disallow use of hyperlinks. So that formally resolves the two issues I raised earlier, and here I am going to pivot. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Pivot away from focus on Bluebook

"OK per Bluebook" was not a good answer to my original objection at the Talk page. Notecardforfree, I don't know how much you work with IP law. I guess the thing that I see and that you and others who don't work in IP law may not see, is the POV problem with the Alappat article - it has no sense of the historical context in which the Alappat decision was made (discussed here) nor any voice that finds the current trend of SCOTUS cases (Bilski/Mayo/Alice) and the rise of 101 rejections to be out of step with the rest of the world (eg Europe, see here) and making a mess of patent law by blurring lines between 101, 102, and 103 rejections (per this and this, for example). Instead, the article is written with a single POV that the rise of 101 rejections is "correct" - that the dissent in In re Alappat was "correct" -- (if you don't know, Alice etc sided with the dissent in overthrowing Alappat) - and in the footnote that started this discussion, I was startled to see the dissent cited as an explanation of the key issue - "See dissenting opinion of Archer, C.J., arguing that PTO correctly rejected claim 15 as nonpatentable subject matter, stating...". And again, this is exactly what Stern's article - which has the overwhelming WEIGHT in the Aftermath section, argues. The article is written in one very clear POV, and makes arguments for that POV throughout, including in the footnotes and that footnote in particular. (I do have larger issues with the article, as I am making clear here, and the footnote is funky to me in that light) Please don't get me wrong - it is great and persuasive legal writing for a law journal. It is not a good WP article, in my view.

    • Here is the heart of the matter with regard to what we are discussing - namely footnotes. What is becoming clear, is that you perhaps don't see how the footnote is making an argument fitting with the overall view of the article. This very large footnote cites a whole string of law, including a general quote from "Chisum on Patents" (which is where some of SYN comes in, citing an authority on the general point) to support one reading of the key issue in the case - a reading that is with the PTO's original decision, against the actual decision in the case, "with" the dissent, with the current SCOTUS trend, and with Stern's view. It makes an argument. In non-law Wikipedia articles, citations simply.... provide the citation and perhaps a quote - they don't provide narrative like this one does, and like Footnote 2 (in the lead) does, and like footnote 22 does (which simply is an unsourced editorial comment: "The phrase appears to have first been used in the majority opinion in this case" which appears to be pure OR to me). I really don't understand how you see all this as OK in Wikipedia.

Here is another example of one passage with two footnotes that demonstrate what I'm trying to describe. Again, this is fine and persuasive legal writing, but invalid Wikipedia writing with regard to lack of actual citations and use of footnotes to promote and further WP:OR, from Business method patent:

The majority opinion in In re Bilski refused to hold business methods categorically ineligible on any ground. Judge Mayer's dissent, however, seconded by Judges Dyk's and Linn's concurring opinion, insisted that the US patent system is limited to technology and therefore it excludes trade and business expedients. Judge Mayer equated the US Constitution's limitation of patent grants to the "useful arts"[1] to a limitation to technology, relying on case law stating that technology is the modern equivalent of useful arts.[2]

References

  1. ^ Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution Gives Congress the power “To promote the Progress of…useful Arts” by granting patents. The Supreme Court has held that the grant of power is also a limitation on congressional power. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 5–6 (1966).
  2. ^ See, for example, Malla Pollack, The Multiple Unconstitutionality of Business Method Patents, 28 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 61, 96 (2002; Micro Law, "What Kinds of Computer-Software-Related Advances (if Any) Are Eligible for Patents? Part II: The Useful Arts Requirement," IEEE MICRO (Sept.-Oct. 2008) (available at http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/KindsElg-II.pdf and http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=4659278&isnumber=4659262.pdf ).

The first part of that is unsourced altogether. The first footnote doesn't VERIFY what Judge Mayer said at all nor that two justices joined Mayer; it instead provides a citation to the constitution and to a 1966 SCOTUS decision that "proves" that what it is claimed that Judge Mayer said, is correct. This is so strange to me to see in Wikipedia. Likewise the second footnote doesn't actually cite any case law (and here is where I would expect to see some Bluebook style citations citing X case that relied on Y case etc... but we don't even get that. These are the kinds of issues that I was trying to address on the Talk page of Alappat. These are the kinds of mistakes that expert editors who are not familiar with WP and its content policies make. I should not have followed you down this garden path that these footnotes are OK per Bluebook - the "Bluebook" thing is a red herring. Jytdog (talk)

That was all TL/DR I am sure, but these are the kinds of issues that I was trying to address at Alappat and will try to keep addressing from time to time at the article level. I don't believe this discussion is appropriate for this board anymore, since the general question about Bluebook has been asked and answered. I appreciate those who spoke with me. Thanks for your time. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The first citation in your quote from business method patent isn't offered to verify what Mayer said (either the accuracy of what he said or that he said it in a particular case), but to annotate what the phrase "US Constitution's limitation of patent grants to the 'useful arts'" refers to and is based upon. That seems very clear to me from both the context and the content (I don't even know how you could read it any other way), and that kind of explanatory footnote is not only completely permissible and not at all OR, but highly desirable. No comment on the remainder. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Just ignore him at this point. He does not have consensus and can be sanctioned if he edits against consensus. He clearly has a case of can't hear that. GregJackP Boomer! 17:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, I don't want to comment on the merits of the specific example you cited in your most recent response, but I agree - at a fundamental level - that using sources to produce an original conclusion is original research. However, my earlier comments were simply a defense against the argument that there was something unique about Bluebook that facilitated original research. I was concerned about making generalizations from a few examples, which are probably best dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That said, I also think there is value to including sources that indirectly support a proposition (in addition to sources that directly support, of course) through the use of signals like see also or cf. which can help readers get a better sense of the breadth of opinions on the subject (while being mindful of WEIGHT and NPOV). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I hear you. I do. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Break II

Ok, I'm about back to being done. I was wrong about the competence issue, you've got a bunch of experienced Wikipedia legal editors explaining to you that it is not WP:SYNTH, one even points out the WP:NOTSYNTH essay, and you still don't get it? Look, if a bunch of experienced editors tell someone that an apple is not an orange a bunch of times, and that individual is still convinced that it is an orange, it doesn't make the lone guy a Wikihero. It is called being a disruptive editor.

What will it take to convince you? 5 editors to 1? 10 to 1? 100 to 1? There is consensus here. Drop the stick. GregJackP Boomer! 02:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps reading WP:1AM will help him. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I wish. I've wikilinked it for him, oh, about 10-15 times now. It hasn't seemed to have any impact. GregJackP Boomer! 03:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
And discussions on the RfC process, especially its criticisms, may help the WP:1AM editors fix their flawed advice. But I think we should keep this discussion focused on citations and not the consensus development process. Int21h (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is developed by discussion. That 1 in 100 disagrees does not mean that 1 is disruptive, it means they are developing consensus. Int21h (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
See WP:STICK and WP:1AM. At a certain point, it is WP:TE, WP:CTDAPE, and WP:IDHT. We are well past that point here. GregJackP Boomer! 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No, opinions that discussion on a talk page dealing with, to be quite frank, a subject that there was a majority opinion, not consensus, is wrong. Although it may not be obvious to you, that there are this many discussions about this topic by so many different editors should give you the hint about whether or not there is consensus. And again, let's keep this discussion about the topic at hand, not about other editors or the consensus development process--you should take it elsewhere. Int21h (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be correct, had it merely been a majority issue. That wasn't the case. Jytdog claimed an article was an essay and OR/SYNTH. It wasn't, and that's what the host of experienced legal editors (most of whom are also lawyers) told him. This it the issue that brought us here. The concern he had about the use of Bluebook and the citations is based on the In re Alappat article. This is not news to him, it's just another venue for him to address the same thing he's been told at multiple locations. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
This thread started about Bluebook and was for the most part a good discussion. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that. GregJackP Boomer! 05:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

{{cite court}}

{{cite court}}. Please use it. Thank you. Int21h (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

To illustrate my point, here is a problem solving question:

"The style used by _____________________________ is incorrect, therefore we should start a discussion and fix ________________________________ ."

a) the commonly used citation template for this type of citation (e.g., {{cite court}})

b) this brand new template we created for someone else to convert the shit-ton (note: US customary units) of Wikipedia articles to use (e.g., {{Bluebook}})

c) all these citations we just typed in manually and will now have to maintain individually for all time

Int21h (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, no. I stopped using that template when it kept f'ing up the references in my first featured article. I'll use {{Ussc}} or {{West}}, but I'll never use {{cite court}} again. GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah. So, option (b) then. I really didn't mean "brand" literally, but it fits I guess. Int21h (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is a simple minded question, but please enlighten this unenlightened one. Why don't you just enter Bluebook citations, especially U.S. and F.3d, manually. It seems easier to write Jones v. Smith, 321 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2015), than to wrestle with a form--yes?
PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminder about Wikipedia:HeinOnline donation at Wikipedia Library

Hi all, I just wanted to remind you all that we have received a donation of access to law related databases from HeinOnline at the WP:The Wikipedia Library. I would encourage you all to sign up, if you need access, at Wikipedia:HeinOnline, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Justice Scalia" or just "Scalia"?

After the first mention of a Judge or Justice in an article, should we continue to refer to them as "Justice Doe," or simply by their last name alone? For example, which of these two passages (from a hypothetical article) is correct:

  • Example 1: Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Plaintiff v. Defendant. Justice Scalia held the defendant was liable for negligence. Although he conceded it was a close case, Justice Scalia ruled that the defendant breached her duty of care.
  • Example 2: Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Plaintiff v. Defendant. Scalia held the defendant was liable for negligence. Although he conceded it was a close case, Scalia ruled that the defendant breached her duty of care.

On one side of the argument, WP:LASTNAME states that individuals should be "referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix" after the first mention of their name in an article. On the other side of the argument, WP:HONORIFIC states that honorifics should be used when the honorific "is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it." In legal scholarship, Supreme Court justices and other lower court Judges are often referred to as "Justice Smith" or "Judge Jones," even if their name has been introduced earlier in the article (see, for example, this article). Consequently, I am inclined to use "Justice Douglas" or "Chief Justice Rehnquist," even if their name has been mentioned earlier in the article. What are your thoughts? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It does sound somewhat disrespectful or even contemptuous to say Scalia after the first time, especially repeatedly. In opinions for the court, as contrasted with a dissent, it is easy to say "the Court said 'such and such'" and thus dodge the problem.
  There is a similar problem for professors, whom some Wikipedians think should never be so designated. I think that in their case, as well as judges, the first time one should use the honorific and after that, just try to be graceful. For professors, one honorific at the beginning is probably enough. For Justices (like Scalia), I would try to avoid sentence formations in which they are called just Scalia.
  I doubt that Chief has to be repeated, though.
  What is law review practice? What do NY Times and Wall Street J do? Those may provide guidance.
  PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, we generally don't use honorifics. The "commonly attached" provision is probably more for names like Lord Byron. bd2412 T 21:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the "commonly attached" provision does indeed apply to Judges and Justices; the honorifics "Judge" and "Justice" are universally used in legal sources when discussing judges and justices, and even the press usually uses the honorifics in articles. However, I don't agree that the provision applies to "Chief Justice" or "Chief Judge", which are honorifics that are not nearly as widely used. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I think using the surname only for successive uses should be preferred. It's not contemptuous to apply the same rule of style here that we would to anyone else with few exceptions, and there's not going to be any confusion as to who Scalia is once you've already identified him in the article as "Justice Antonin Scalia". We can use singular titles such as "the Chief Justice" for repeated references, however, just as we would "the President"; obviously saying "the Justice" wouldn't work when there are eight at a time (apart from it just looking odd). postdlf (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It should be limited to "Scalia". See WP:SURNAME. Law review practices and the style guides of newspapers are not pertinent; we follow Wikipedia's own Manual of Style. TJRC (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that "[l]aw review practices and the style guides of newspapers are not pertinent" in our analysis. Wikipedia's MOS provides exceptions to general rules for surnames when nearly every available source in the English Language deviates from Wikipedia's MOS conventions. One example is the exception in WP:HONORIFIC when honorifics are "so commonly attached to a name" that readers would expect to see the attached honorific. Another example is WP:NICKNAME's recommendation that authors use the "name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources." In any event, the guidelines in WP:SURNAME and WP:HONORIFIC are designed for biographical articles, and there are no existing guidelines for legal articles (at least none that I could find).
Just as biographical articles reflect common practices in biographical scholarship, legal articles should reflect common practices in legal scholarship. The Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, and the University of Chicago Law Review all refer to Supreme Court justices as "Justice ___" every time the justice is mentioned in an article. Likewise, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal follow the same rule. Our MOS should not be out-of-step with the common linguistic conventions in legal scholarship. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You put that very well, Notecard. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
How would this interact with other title usage? If an article discusses both Scalia and Obama, do we need to use both "Justice Scalia" and "President Obama" throughout? bd2412 T 16:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
BD2412, I think the answer would depend on whether the term "President" is "so commonly attached" to the surname in english sources that readers would expect to see "President Obama" rather than "Obama." In any case, it looks like the guidelines in WP:SURNAME and WP:HONORIFIC are designed for biographical articles, so I'm not sure there is an equivalent applicable provision of the MOS for legal articles. It looks like legal existing legal articles are divided: some use "Justice ___" every time they refer to a justice, some don't, some simply refer to "the Court," and some employ a mixture of all three. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Use of "the Court" is a different issue, as that should always be used as the "speaker" of a majority opinion, which by definition is the Court's opinion. A justice "delivers" it (if it is not per curiam), and may in fact have authored most or all of it (or their clerks did, and/or the other justices who joined it and maybe had editing suggestions). But if that opinion commands a majority, it represents the words of the Court as an institution rather than any individual justice. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is a different issue. I was simply attempting to illustrate that there is no existing convention among SCOTUS articles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
That points up the problem with the "walled garden" approach. Every field has its style but as TJRC noted, we follow WP:MOS in WP. Point #3 in our useful essay for experts discusses this too Wikipedia:Expert_editors#Advice_for_expert_editors. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you guys keep saying that it's the Wikipedia way to say just "Scalia," instead of explaining why it makes sense to say "Scalia" instead of "Justice Scalia"? The argument against is that it makes better sense to do the opposite, as incidentally is evidenced by the practice of the rest of the well informed world (NYT. WSJ, YLJ, HLR, etc.). Why don't you explain why that view is wrong?

Also, the type of article in question is almost 100% write-ups of SCOTUS decisions. How many (or what %) of WP articles on SCOTUS cases mention both Scalia (or another Justice) and Obama? (If you want an example, why not pick the better [and less hypothetical] one of Scalia plus a professorial or lay commentator? Even there, however, what's the problem with saying "Justice Scalia," on the one hand, and blogger "Gene Quinn" [or just "Quinn"] on the other?) PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

b/c this is Wikipedia. Please do read the bullet of the EXPERT essay I pointed to. MOS is the product of lots and lots of community discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Jyt, you are just repeating yopurself (is that unusual?). You are not explaining WHY it is a good idea. You just say "that's how WE do it." PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Praceptor this is something I've been trying to communicate to you for a while, yes. This is a "constitutional law" issue within WP. The policies and guidelines of WP are expressions of the WP:CONSENSUS of the community, worked out over a very long period of time. WP:CONSENSUS is the bedrock foundation of this institution, and you have to respect the precedents established by it - the policies and guidelines. (Why must you? By contract -- because the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, to which you agree every time you edit here, state that "You adhere...to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities." You have already agreed to try to understand and respect the way this place works.) WP:MOS especially has been the subject of hellish long battles as people from different disciplines have fought to to do things their own way. Like EXPERT says: "Wikipedia has its own article titles policy and manual of style, geared toward making the encyclopedia as reader-friendly as possible to a broad, general audience, without dumbing down content. These Wikipedia-internal best practices are a careful balance of compromises, and they generally do not match in every detail what is preferred in any particular discipline, since stylistic preferences vary in ways that conflict between different fields. Experts are already familiar with having to adapt their writing style for whatever publication to which they are submitting material, and should approach Wikipedia with the same mindset." Please respect MOS, and the other policies and guidelines. Thnaks. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@PraeceptorIP:—you need to remember that Jytdog's interpretation of several policies have been suspect, such as original research in legal articles, the use of a citation style, etc. His interpretation of other issues are also, at times, suspect. Different areas of Wikipedia have differing expectations. For example, infoboxes. Some projects, like SCOTUS, want infoboxes in the articles, some projects, like Classical Music, almost prohibit infoboxes. So despite what he claims, there is a wide variance in what is and is not acceptable.
Next, and I'm sure your more clearly aware of this than I, the WP Terms of Use constitute browserwrap and likely unenforceable for the same reasons pointed out in In re Zappos, 893 F.Supp.2d 1058 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2012). His attempt to claim that they are a binding contract is just a layman's opinion.
If there is local consensus to use "Justice" before the name of a SCOTUS justice, that's what we'll do. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
what was that stuff that Robert Bolt put in the mouth of Thomas More? something about chopping down the forest to chase down the devil...."And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" that's it. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Instead of made-up dialogue by a writer of fiction, let's use his real words: I must say, extreme justice is an extreme injury: For we ought not to approve of those terrible laws that make the smallest offences capital, nor of that opinion of the Stoics that makes all crimes equal; as if there were no difference to be made between the killing a man and the taking his purse, between which, if we examine things impartially, there is no likeness nor proportion. Thomas More, Utopia, 1516. We should not be so focused on the minutia of the rules that we forget that we are here to create content. GregJackP Boomer! 00:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, your response does not directly address the original question in this thread. I think we all agree that the MOS should guide article creation, but we are trying to figure out whether the MOS permits authors to call Justices and Judges as "Justice Smith" or "Judge Williams" the second or third time they are mentioned in the article. I opened this discussion to see if anyone could identify a relevant portion of the MOS that could provide guidance for this question -- if you can identify a portion of the MOS that supports one side of the argument, then by all means let us know.
I am not convinced that there is an existing portion of the MOS on-point because the portions of the MOS listed above deal with titles and biographical articles, rather than legal articles. Assuming, arguendo, that WP:HONORIFIC is applicable here, my impression of the provision is that it directs authors to follow the convention of nearly every English language source and use "Justice Scalia," even if the Justice has been mentioned earlier in the article.
Otherwise, I concur with PraeceptorIP's remarks about respecting well-established conventions and GregJackP's remarks about respecting subject-specific variety within wikipedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Both PraeceptorIP and Notecardforfree are correct, and although I'm sure I've not used the honorific in articles I've written, I should have. We should follow standard legal scholarship in legal articles. GregJackP Boomer! 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal thrillers appropriate for project?

Hi wikilegaleditors, browsing through the talk pages of John Grisham novels i noticed that they don't have the wikiproject law banner. Just wondering if it is okay to add the project to these and other fiction books of this type? thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider works of fiction to be law topics unless they are of the type that gets positive notice from the legal community as particularly good depictions of the workings of the law. bd2412 T 03:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Grisham, while entertaining, is writing fiction. It, as BD2412 states, is not a law topic. My Cousin Vinny is a movie about the law, but is not part of Project Law. GregJackP Boomer! 03:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur with BD2412 and GregJackP that Grisham novels are outside the scope of this project. If there was a non-fiction book that depicted real people associated with the law or real cases, then it might be worthy of inclusion in this project (e.g. Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine), but fictional accounts of fictional legal proceedings are a different matter. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt definitive replies, that is one little wikitask i will not be doing, often i will leave a kitten of thanks but in this case a smilie may be more appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Vosburg v. Putney

I am struggling to understand how the current version of the article is a better format than this version. The previous version was written as running text; the current version is a collection of bullet points. I don't think we format articles this way. bd2412 T 03:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: I have reverted the addition of similar styling by the same editor at Garratt v. Dailey. bd2412 T 04:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
BD2412, I agree with you that the article should be written in the form of a narrative, rather than bullet points. The current version should definitely be edited to conform to MOS:PARAGRAPHS's guidelines for "paragraphs of running prose." It looks like the author copied and pasted the current version from an outline. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Add "Annual Tuition" field to Template:Infobox law school

A discussion is taking place about whether to add an "Annual Tuition" field to {{Infobox law school}}. This page within the scope of this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark

There is a discussion on whether 0.1% of the population not being citizens by birthright (American Indians) requires the removal of the phrase "practically everybody" from the lead of the article. GregJackP Boomer! 08:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:William J. Brennan, Jr.#Keep or remove list of majority opinions between 1957 and 1961?

There is a discussion about whether the article for William J. Brennan, Jr. should include a partial and incomplete list of his opinions, written between 1957 and and 1961. Comments from editors would be appreciated. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability question

Are all Executive Orders per se notable? See Draft:Executive Order 13693 for reference. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, E.O.s are not inherently notable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Is Draft:Samuel Jacob Stoljar notable? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Don't know, all of the refs are bare URLs and I'm not going to spend the time going to each one. Onel5969 said that it is not, I trust his judgment on the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Possible compromise approach: Why don't you ask the person who drafted the proposed article to convert all the bare URLs to the format: Author, [URL Title], citation (e.g., 12 Yale L.J. 34 (1981)) ? If the author won't, ignore him/her. If the author does, make a quick-look evaluation based on title and journal; read only if necessary. (??) - PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You put it much clearer than I did. FoCuSandLeArN, ask if the drafter (or you) will do that, and I'll be happy to look at it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's see if they do. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:JCW needs help!

WP:JCW, a compilation of all |journal= parameters of citation templates has recently updated. Several law and law-related publications are heavily cited, and lack articles on them. Any help on writing those would be greatly appreciated (and we even have some guides at WP:JWG (journals) and WP:MWG (magazines), to help editors create these articles). I took the liberty of compiling a list, although I'm no expert on the topic, and I'm only basing myself on the titles of these publications. I could be missing a few, or include things not really related to the project, so feel free to edit the below list.

Note that for some of them, it might be preferable (e.g. if they fail WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG) to expand the articles on their publisher/associated societies with a section on the journal/magazine, and create a redirect to that section, rather than create a standalone article. But I leave that to WP:LAW editors to decide. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, is not a journal, it is a multi-volume book edited by Kappler and published about 1904-1920 or so. GregJackP Boomer! 16:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Like mentionned above, this is based on a compilation of all the |journal= parameters of citation templates. Misuse of templates lead to these oddities. As a series of books/monographs though, it could still be considered notable under WP:NJOURNALS/WP:NBOOK, and get an article created for the series, e.g. Mens Sana Monographs. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC, Should this biography include commentary or reactions from politicians?, has been posted at the talk page for Kim Davis (county clerk). Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 17:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

NS Justice System

As I intend to write an article about Judiciary in Nazi Germany 1933-45, I kindly ask for your support. My native language is German and the German version will be entitled NS-Justiz. But I still can't decided about the English title. Please voice an opinion, here are the choices:

  • NS Justice System
  • Nazi Justice System
  • NS Judiciary
  • Nazi Judiciary

Maybe You have an even better proposal. My draft can be seen in my sandbox. Regards --Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Meister und Margarita, thanks so much for taking on this project! At least in the United States, I think most people don't realize that the abbreviation "NS" stands for "National Socialism," and I think the majority of readers are also unaware that "National Socialism" is synonymous with "Nazism." Therefore, I would recommend using the title "Judiciary of Nazi Germany." I think many articles about national judiciaries follow the same naming convention (see Judiciary of Germany and Judiciary of France). If you need help with the drafting process, please let me know (unfortunately, I don't speak German). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your suggestion which seems very appropriate. You are free to add information to my draft (and/or to correct my mistakes). I estimate that it will take at least two months to finish the article . Thanks again and I will come back to your offer. By the way, I was flabbergasted by the fact that the article Judiciary of Germany doesn't even mention the Nazi period.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Meister und Margarita: I found little happened to the courts themselves during the Nazi period. This seems to disturb many Germans, that Germany has effectively used the Nazi courts, hell even the same professional judges, before and after the Nazi period. Yes, obviously the lay judges were Nazis, because they were short term appointments chosen by the ruling political parties (again, not because of the Nazis). The GVG was enacted in 1877, and the courts look much the same 1877-current, with the major changes before and after the Nazis (but relatively few changes *to the courts* and nothing unprecedented, other than the lay judges, by the Nazis). All your article says is that the courts enforced the law. That's not really WP:Notable, that's a court's purpose, it's definitive. The law changed, the courts applied the law. If the article is about what is different about the courts during the Nazi period, then it would be what laws they applied and who they applied those different laws to, and when, but that's not really about the courts so much as it is about the Nazis and their laws. Int21h (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Proprietary lien - unclear definition

Hello Wikilawyers! There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Proprietary lien regarding the redirect proprietary lien, which currently targets maritime lien. There is a brief definition of a proprietary lien in the lede of the target article, but it's not clear whether all proprietary liens are maritime liens, or vice versa, or some other situation. If you can help clarify in the redirect discussion or by editing the article, your help is greatly appreciated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notification

A new discussion has been started at: Talk:Sodomy#POV and "Sodomy". Comments appreciated. GregKaye 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hywel Dda Edit-a-thon

A Hywel Dda Edit-a-thon will be held at The National Library of Wales of October 16th, 2015 to focus on improving content relating to Hywel Dda, the Laws of Hywel Dda, and their legacy. Everyone is welcome! Jason.nlw (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Criminal Code of Canada

"Criminal Code of Canada" has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Criminal Code of Canada ; also the article itself is in somewhat poor shape, with unusual massive notes instead of being paragraphs, lack of inline references, mixtures of external links and refs, and weird external links sitting in the middle of the page. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_18"