Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 21

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Tele-evidence

There is a proposal to merge tele-evidence into deposition (law) here. What do you think? --David Tornheim (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with LegalShield article

Hello! On behalf LegalShield and The Pollack PR Marketing Group, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've written an updated draft for the LegalShield Wikipedia article about the pre-paid legal services company. I'm reaching out here hoping to find an uninvolved editor to review the proposed re-write and make edits appropriately. If anyone from this project is interested, they can view more details on the article's Talk page here. I've placed the full draft into my user space, to give an idea of the updates as a whole, but I'm also open to working through section-by-section if needed. Thanks in advance for any help. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 02:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@16912 Rhiannon: I responded at the talk page. Thanks for disclosing your WP:COI and going through the proper process! --David Tornheim (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

How to describe the Emmett Till case in the lead sentence of the Emmett Till article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Citations and citation templates

General concern

I am still trying to become comfortable and familiar with how we handle legal citations here compared to my recent legal research & writing classes. It is clear the preference under MOS:LAW (and from the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_18#Systemic_changes_of_citation_style_to_Bluebook) is Bluebook, except that abbreviations and titles (for Wikipedia articles) are different. How these same citations are supposed to be used for <ref>...</ref> and titles to sections of articles, is less clear, especially for cases that are not in the major reporters. The focus of the documentation for templates is almost entirely on the U.S. Supreme Court. We have the template {{Ussc}}, which even explains how to refer to Justia, Findlaw, etc., giving a preference for Justia:

|source=
If you do not select a source, the template creates a link to the Justia website. To select an alternative source, type one of the following:

But this does not give much guidance for use of templates for smaller cases. The documentation and parameters for the other four templates under Category:Bluebook_style_citation_templates is limited.

I am posting here both for my clarity and because I would like to improve the documentation (and maybe push for better templates) for others in my same situation.

FYI. I do have significant experience coding, even though I have not messed with the Wikipedia templates, bots or diving into how Wikitext is turned into HTML, etc., so if we lack coders interested in improving the templates, I might be willing to step up with guidance from editors with J.D.'s.

As another sidenote: I have the impression ALWD Citation Manual has gained substantial ground in acceptance when compared with Bluebook. When I took a legal research and writing paralegal class 10 years ago, only Bluebook and state citation formats were taught. This time around, Bluebook was hardly even mentioned, and for the class dedicated to federal briefs and memos, we were only taught the use of ALWD.

--David Tornheim (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Specific concern

At present I came to this article: Mortgage_Electronic_Registration_Systems.

It appears to the citations in both the section titles, the main text and the refs are all incorrect and I was about to fix them. However, as above, I was not sure what to do, having found the documentation inadequate to the task.

For example, one section is titled (found here):

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Lisa Marie Chong, et al. (United States District Court, District of Nevada)

The case ref is:

"MERS, Inc. v. Lisa Marie Chong, et. al. Order in the U.S. District Court of the Nevada". Retrieved January 25, 2010.

Lexis gives the Bluebook citation as:

Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. v. Chong, No. 2:09-CV-00661-KJD-LRL, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127500 (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2009).

How should the title of the section and reference look based on our rules? Which template should be used for the ref? The other cases listed in the article are not much better.

Pinging editors with J.D.'s from previous discussion: Notecardforfree, PraeceptorIP, GregJackP, Minor4th, postdlf. (Please also consider the General concern section above.)

--David Tornheim (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

  • That article is a cluster-f**k. Many of the cited decisions are from trial courts, and should be pulled from the article unless they are notable in some other way. The 2010 foreclosure section also gives way too much weight to that one small part of history. GregJackP Boomer! 19:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep. I think we can agree on that.  :) As with so many legal articles, lengthy essays with no references. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

David, on the specific case cite, many writers stick with the older BB convention of not abbreviating the first word of a party name (here, Mortgage). Also, abbrev'g U.S. in U.S. v. xxxxx. Further, Wikipedia seems allergic to abbreviating in names of articles (except Inc., Co., etc.). but not footnotes. I think Notecardforfree is particularly au courant on these points, so you might consult. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

PraeceptorIP, many thanks for the kind compliment. David Tornheim, BB rule 10.2.2 says that you shouldn't abbreviate the first word of either party's name, even though that word may appear in T6. However, for some organizations with widely recognized initials (e.g. the FCC), the Bluebook allows authors to use acronyms (see this guide for more info about that). In this case, I don't think that "Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc." so well-known that it can be abbreviated, though reasonable minds may differ. I hope this is helpful, and please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@GregJackP, PraeceptorIP, and Notecardforfree: Thanks for the replies. Two of you were focused on just the possible abbreviation of the Plaintiff/Petitioner/Appellant, and I apprecaite you feedback on that, and will note that since the article is about Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., abbreviating it would not be confusing to the reader. I was actually concerned about the entire citation for both the section header and the reference. Both seemed to be unusual in this article. I wanted to know how each of you would title the section and handle the ref. If I remember correctly, they are not even close to Bluebook or any other format, and I am looking for guidelines because the Wikipedia MOS:LAW is not as clear as it might be. I want to follow the rules but not entirely clear on what the rules are. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
David Tornheim, for section headings, I would just use the case title and omit the rest of the citation. As for your question about the full citation, I would use the following as a general citation: Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Chong, No. 2:09-CV-00661-KJD-LRL, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127500 (D. Nev. Dec. 4, 2009). If you are citing to a specific page from the Lexis version of the case, include the page number with and asterisk (*) after the Lexis citation. Here is an example from another case: Albrecht v. Stranczek, No. 87 C 9535, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5088, at *1, *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 15, 1991). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing

Per Wikipedia:Canvassing I believe this discussion is tainted by the attempt to limit it to editors with JDs. This bias is likely to result in a result that makes it hard for editors who do not have JDs to edit legal articles, and for readers who do not have JDs to read the legal articles. I believe this discussion should be closed and restarted. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not trying to keep anyone out of the discussion. I am trying to encourage people who have competence in the subject area to help lead the discussion rather than have it immediately taken over and dominated an editor who lacks familiarity with the basics of citations. Since you appear to have competence with templates, I more than welcome you to join the discussion. Also, I'm not trying to change any policy or guideline about legal citations. I am trying to clarify what we are doing by people who I think are most likely to understand it. FYI, I don't have a J.D. If we do decide to make big changes to MOS:LAW, an RfC will probably be appropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
What a crock. This was in no ways canvassing, he was asking for experts to take a look at it. He could have pinged any number of people, and without a question pending, it is not canvasing. GregJackP Boomer! 19:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
GregJP is quite right. David, pay no attention to resentful inexpert editors. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability of legal cases

King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Ass'n v. Blackwell appears to be built upon primary sources and an alternative weekly. I suspect that it is a coatrack for a minor conspiracy theory involving the death of Michael Connell. The case does not appear to be notable to me, however, this is beyond my area of expertise. I'm wondering if someone more familiar with the notability of legal cases can chime in. Thanks! -Location (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It seems a stub article was created in full name of the case. After Feb 2017 it did not get much edits beyond categorisation. Full name article is The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Others (DU Photocopy Case)

1) For one full name of the case too long and defficult to search since it begins with 'The' 2) There can be many other cases where in Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford and Delhi university will be involved but name of Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case likely to remain more unique. 3) The full name article can always be redirected to Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case article.

Hence I do suggest we do merge The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Others (DU Photocopy Case) be merged in and redirected to Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case article.

Please let me know your views at Talk:Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case#Merger proposal

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite request for article Civics

Hi,

English wikipedia article Civics was tagged for clean-up and rewriting. Since article was written with singular perspectives of political science and was more of wikibooks style or some part was only about civics in usa, So undersigned cleaned it up by forking out/exporting such content to wikibooks b:Transwiki:Civics and a new separate article Civic education in the United States.

The above said clean up makes space for fresh rewriting of article Civics. Undersigned requests and hopes to get fresh impetus and inputs to this article from different perspectives including that of Law,as well as social and political sciences.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Transgender legal history in the United States

(This announcement is cross-posted from WT:LGBT.)

Announcing new article Transgender legal history in the United States, which is a move of about 68kb of content from History of transgender people in the United States to the new article, in a size split. Additional refactoring and section re-org may be needed in both articles, as well as other cleanup to complete the split. You are invited to contribute. Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

An Rfc

Hi,

A Request for comment to build consensus is raised at Talk:Legitimacy (criminal law)#RfC requesting concensus to move article to Legitimacy (law) talk page.


The reason is : Previously written title article for Legitimacy (law) over a period of time actually and mistakenly got developed only for 'Legitimacy (family law)'. In legal studies, "Legitimacy (law)" is supposed to be refered to Legitimacy of law which is entirely vast and different subject. The present article 'Legitimacy (family law)' has limited scope to family law matters and still it is unncessarilly blocking and using misleading title of a different & wider subject.
  • What is proposed in Rfc
1) Move "that" article to heading Legitimacy (law) as a rightfull claim over the title.
2) to correct redierections in various articles from Legitimacy (law) to Legitimacy (family law).(list). for example [[Legitimacy (law)|bastard son]] link in one of the articles needs to be changed to [[Legitimacy (family law)|bastard son]] or for example [[Legitimacy (law)#History|illegitimate]] needs to be changed to [[Legitimacy (family law)#History|illegitimate]]

Please do participate and share your valuable openions at talk page Talk:Legitimacy (criminal law)#RfC requesting concensus to move article to Legitimacy (law)

Mahitgar (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The article "Maxims of equity"

I'm unsure how notable the topic is. If it is, then the article may need improvements, which I discussed at Talk:Maxims of equity#Article quality. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

These were covered when I took remedies in law school. I'd say it's notable enough for inclusion here. bd2412 T 02:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Help improve Bar review?

If anyone has the time and inclination to work up Bar review, it is in dire need of it. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The topic is a bit reference-resistant. Every RS I seem to be able to find is itself a book-based bar review course, not about bar reviews. TJRC (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
How about case law, then? American Professional Testing Service, Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal and Professional Publications, Inc., 108 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir., 1997):

Bar review companies offer courses to recent law school graduates who are preparing to sit for a state bar examination. The bar examination of most states includes a "multistate" portion consisting of a standardized 200 question multiple-choice test (identical in all states), and a state-law component that tests the law of the particular state offering the examination. A full service bar review course prepares a student for both portions of a state's bar examination: multistate and state law. A supplemental bar review course prepares a student for only one portion of a state's bar examination. Bar review course sponsors compete for potential customers on law school campuses through distribution of advertising fliers, sponsored student events, and advertisements in student newspapers. These businesses promote their courses directly to law students throughout their three years of law school. Some law students are employed as sales representatives to market courses to their classmates, and full-time sales personnel "table sit" at law schools to promote their firm's courses.

bd2412 T 20:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
That was very clever of you. That hadn't occurred to me. You've made some nice headway on the article. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Federal law question

Can someone with knowledge of federal law please take a close look at 18 U.S.C. § 871 and 18 U.S.C. § 3559 and say whether threatening the President of the United States is a class D or E felony? It seems to me that the key phrase is "maximum term of imprisonment authorized" as opposed to "term of imprisonment authorized". In other words, they're classified based on the maximum, not on the range, as might be the case with some state laws. 208.54.36.247 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

New article: Higher Education and Research Act 2017

I have created a new draft article: Draft:Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which details an act recently passed in the UK. While we're waiting for it to be reviewed and (hopefully) accepted, would people with experience in this area mind taking a look, and either making or suggesting changes? Thanks. (Apologies for previously posting this in the wrong place.) Macinn.es 14:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macinn.es (talk • contribs)

Original research noticeboard inquiry about Texas's age of consent

Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#What_is_Texas.27s_age_of_consent.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices push to finish.

Let's have a drive to finish the 1,655 drafts left to be completed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Blackmail, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Jewish content at the Definitions of whiteness in the United States article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Definitions of whiteness in the United States#Jewish material. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Using "illicit" to describe Letourneau's interaction with Fualaau at Mary Kay Letourneau article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Regarding "illicit". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Any British editors here?

Help very welcome at Draft:Best interest decisions in England and Wales.—S Marshall T/C 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry on how "age of consent" should be defined?

See Talk:Age_of_consent#Defining_what_.22age_of_consent.22_means.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

  • Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Law journals).
  • One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
  • VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST
  • There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
  • |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
  • If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.
  • Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
  • WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Inspection_of_documents

Could someone look at this article? It is now one of the longest articles tagged for cleanup. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • RJFJR, I essentially re-wrote this article to bring it up to our quality standards. I went ahead and removed the maintenance tags. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you! You did a nice Job. RJFJR (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I am making certain claims about a legal case. Are they accurate?

At User:Guy Macon/Discrimination against the visually impaired I am making certain claims of a legal nature, such as

'"This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990"

and

'"National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it. This resulted in Target paying out roughly ten million dollars."

When it comes to legal issues, I am an excellent Electrical Engineer. Lawyer? Not so much. So could someone with a bit more experience please review my claims? For example, was the Target payout later reduced? Or maybe I missed some additional payout? And is my understanding o9f the ADA correct, or am I taking about a situation that is an exception?

I just want to make sure that I am not, in my ignorance, making any bogus claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guy, this seems like a really important issue - I am not an american lawyer but I do have some legal training and access to legal databases. I will try and look into it for you and reply on your talkpage. AlasdairEdits (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
On my talk page User talk:Guy Macon#Americans with Disabilities Act and CAPTCHA AlasdairEdits says "everything I read seems to interpret this as talking about commercial companies offering services to the public" but cautions that "if a qualified american lawyer comes along then their interpretation should trump mine".
Keeping in mind my deep, deep ignorance on this topic, according to http://www.thefamilyy.org/ "The YMCA of Greater Augusta is a 501(C)(3) Non-Profit Organization. Donations are tax-exempt FIN: 58-0566254", yet https://www.ada.gov/ymca_augusta.html says that "This matter was initiated by a complaint filed with the United States against the YMCA alleging violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 36. Specifically, the Complainant, L.B., alleges that the YMCA failed to modify its policies as necessary to afford her son, C.B., an individual with intellectual disabilities, with the full and equal opportunity to enjoy the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of the YMCA." So it seems to my untrained eyes that the Target case establishes that the ADA applies to web sites and the YMCA cas establishes that the ADA applies to non-profits. Am I wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
...Sound of Crickets... --Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
...Chirp... --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
...Chirp... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue of whether the ADA applies to websites, and if so when and how, is currently unresolved. As indicated in the case you cite, one district judge in California concluded that it does, but the case was then settled by agreement of the parties. Thus, there was no appellate court decision and the case did not set a broad precedent. For some more recent coverage summarizing the current state of the US law in this area, see for example here or here. Also, I am not sure whether the current administration has taken a position on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Crush fetish article

Hi, all. Can we get some opinions on the current state of Crush fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I started a discussion at Talk:Crush fetish#Recent expansions. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Bluebook abbreviations in Infobox journal

I've added support for the Bluebook abbreviation in {{Infobox journal}}. So if you have a journal like Harvard Law Review, you can add |bluebook=Harv. L. Rev. to it (e.g. [1]).

Also, I've added some redirect-detection, in that if the abbreviation doesn't exist, you get prompted to create the redirect (with a link to the Gallagher Law Library to verify the abbreviation is correct). Feel free to suggest tweaks at Template talk:Infobox journal.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A specific question I have is should the dotless version of the Bluebook redirect (Harv L Rev) be created and tagged with {{R from Bluebook}}? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That seems like a very good idea. bd2412 T 13:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Bluebook support in general, or encouraging the creation of redirects of both dotted and dotless versions or redirects? Or are Bluebook abbreviations exclusively dotted (in which case dotless version could still be created, but they would be tagged with {{R from typo}}/{{R from abbreviation}} instead)? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Bluebook abbreviations always have periods at the end, except where they are really contractions rather than abbreviations and include the last letter of the shortened word. (For example, "Corp." but "Ass'n"). But many official court style guides, such as New York's, omit the periods from both ordinary abbreviations and reporter and periodical names. When the periods are omitted it's usually a deliberate style choice, so I would not refer to it as a typo. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the redirects. Redirects are cheap, so make all the ones that fit. bd2412 T 17:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, in that case, if dotless versions are in use, they are likely search terms. What we've been doing with ISO 4 redirects is to tag bot dotted and dotless versions with {{R from ISO 4}}, since the core structure is still ISO 4, even though technically ISO 4 normally includes dots. I propose we do the same here, but it's up to the project. We could have a separate {{R from Bluebook abbreviation (dotless)}} if that's preferred, although I don't personally see the point. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

On that note, if someone wants to go through Category:Law journals and start adding those bluebook abbreviations, that would be awesome! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I can help out with this over the next week or so. Headbomb, thanks so much for adding Bluebook functionality! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: Animal Law Review said that the bluebook abbreviation was Animal L., but from what I can tell, it should be Animal L. Rev., and Animal L. refers to a publication called Animal Law. Can you confirm? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: "Animal Law Review" and "Animal Law" are the same journal. The correct Bluebook abbreviation is "Animal L." Sometimes, the journal will simply drop the word "Review" from its name. For example, in the upper margin of the articles it publishes, it simply refers to itself as "Animal Law" (see this example of an article published in the journal, and see also the Bluebook abbreviation "Animal L." on the bottom of each page). Thanks again for your work with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa#David Carradine, dagga, racism and the Apartheid State. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with citation

Hello, I am attempting to use Template:Cite court for the first time. Please check whether I've cited this correctly. If this is a filed report and it is possible to find the case report after the decision was made, please help me find that link. Thanks! 129.97.58.107 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Substance abuse-related protected health information

I would appreciate some help in understanding US laws regarding substance abuse-related protected health information in order to improve a guideline for Wikipedia editors when writing on biographies of living persons who may have experienced substance abuse problems. A quick internet search did not reveal good sources, and I don't have experience in legal research. My draft is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Addictions and recovery/Style advice#Substance abuse and BLP. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments: proposed reassessment of Statutory interpretation mid importance-->high importance

Hi everyone, thanks for all your contributions. This article gets more monthly views (13,700) than Statutory law (12,500) and Case law (7,000). Those two are rated high and top, respectively. Also, it is a core topic of the law and of significant historical importance. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I would support re-classifying the article as "high" importance. I think you can go ahead and boldly change it; if there is any opposition, we can discuss further. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

PACER

Does anyone have access to the US Courts PACER system, assistance needed with a ship article, details at WT:SHIPS#Article under Prod. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved. jhawkinson (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Clyde cancer cluster

Hello, people of WikiProject Law. I've created this message to notify active members of the project. I need help improving my article about the Clyde cancer cluster, an incident that Whirlpool was sued for in two court cases (even though the article doesn't yet talk about the second court case, see the end of this message for the link to more explanation of this). It is definitely not a bad article. It just needs some small improvements. I'm not at all saying minor edits or improvements are bad, but I'm specifically looking for people who can help me long-term with a lot of co-research to improve the article to reach Good Article status. If you're interested in helping, the things needed to be improved are listed on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster#Improvements. In other words, more material needs to be added to improve the article, and I want more people to edit because I feel like I'm the sole editor. Regards, Philmonte101 (talk)

International Megan's Law signed by President Obama

For those interested: This topic is currently covered in International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking which is now outdated. The bill was recently signed by the president[2] and goes by the name HR 515 International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders.[3] The page should be moved under a new name and the infobox updated.

Nomination of List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

An offline app for Common Law

Hello everyone,

The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested). The readership would likely be people with little to no access to a decent internet connexion but who still would greatly benefit from our content.

What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project (minus biographies) and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:

  1. Would it be okay for you if it were hosted as a subpage of the Wikiproject (e.g. WikiProject Law/Offline)? Not that anyone should notice or care, but I'd rather notify & ask
  2. Would it make sense to produce separate apps for Tort Law, Contract Law, Property Law and Criminal Law (that would probably help use save some space, as users aren't keen on downloading anything above 100Mb)?
  3. Any other breakdown of very top-level topics that you'd recommend besides the aforementioned? (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine2 for what we're looking at in terms of simplicity) Usually people use the search function anyway, but a totally empty landing page isn't too useful either. Alternatively, if you guys use the Book: sorting, that can be helpful.

Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC for pedophilia terminology at the Milo Yiannopoulos article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia?. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to mention that sources note that Yiannopoulos's definition of pedophilia is technically correct, but also that the term is used more broadly than the technical definition (to include adults engaging in sexual activity with minors, or specifically committing child sexual abuse). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Refspam?

I'm not sure.[4] I've reverted some obviously self-published additions. The author is an associate professor of law named SpearIt - that's his full name. The editor has created a draft article on him at Draft:SpearIt. I'm not sure if even the non-selfpublished references belong. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like refspam. While he's apparently a tenured law prof, I'm not aware of SpearIt's publications as being influential anywhere that they're being spammed by this editor. This one, for instance, strikes me as pretty blatant. Even if these aren't necessarily refspam, I think SpearIt's prominence in most fields is low enough giving his work much of any prominence would violate WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Heckler's veto

The article heckler's veto is in serious need of work. Some of the sources for the law on the hecker's veto [legal] doctrine are not even legal scholars, attorneys or case law! One is from the Village voice. I don't have time to hunker down and get it fixed.

This subject is coming up in the media because of Richard Spencer's speeches. I came across the article from: Talk:Richard_B._Spencer#Spencer.E2.80.99s_speech_at_the_University_of_Florida. I tried to read heckler's veto and was sufficiently confused that I started looking at other legal resources for an explanation.

--David Tornheim (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  • The heckler's veto is not a strictly legal concept. It is a social concept with a legal component. bd2412 T 03:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
You are right. I thought the village voice was used for the legal aspect.
I still find the article very poorly written, poorly organized, and confusing. I think we could use one or two very well written articles from authorities on the subject to organize and set the narrative.
I am pretty sure there are serious errors in the legal portion. For example, saying, "authorities can force the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers." I seriously doubt that is the reasoning in any of the cases. I read the case Feiner_v._New_York and the purpose was not to "satisfy the hecklers," but entirely for public safety. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sullivan on Comp draft rejected due to notability

Hi, I have a question about an article I submitted regarding the Sullivan on Comp legal treatise that was rejected a few months back on the basis of notability. Sullivan on Comp may not be relevant to the wider public, but it is a well-respected publication used by people in the California workers' compensation field (attorneys, claims adjusters, HR people, judges, etc.) The problem is that there are very few online references to Sullivan on Comp. It would be great to get some feedback on whether or nor not this article would be accepted under the notability guidelines for academic journals. Any guidance would be most appreciated. Angsthead (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have examined the treatise you mention, and I do not think it passes any of the three criteria in WP:NJOURNALS, it is an independently published journal not distributed by a publisher like Lexis, if it were I would perhaps consider it differently, however there is little to indicate its use or recognition, and if I was looking for a reference work on that subject I would not chose it first. However you can still apply yourself towards finding sources to meet WP:GNG. Dysklyver 23:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Dysklyver, I appreciate the feedback. Angsthead (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation proposal at Village pump

Please see WP:Village pump (proposals)#Legal Citations in articles dealing with U.S. law Jc3s5h (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Suicide terminology: "committed"?

Your opinion regarding the proper style of language to use when discussing suicide would be appreciated at the Manual of Style guideline. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Expertlaw.com

Link to this website being added alot per [5] Is this a realiable source and thus a useful thing? Being added by an IP range that changes their IP each time they work on an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Expertlaw.com. Dysklyver 13:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move discussion at Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia

The discussion can be found here:

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Baja: "legal" or not?

Would like some opinions at Talk:Same-sex marriage in Baja California#Legal, vs law not enforced concerning the use of the word "legal" in the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Resolved Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

OR Issues

(Moved over from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal)

Hi all,

I've recently started working on a some articles in this project field and have noticed a few issues. The one I'd like to discuss at the moment is the problem of WP:Original Research. OR is a problem that crops up in many areas of WP articles – my "home" area of WP:CHINA certainly included. However, it seems to be pretty pervasive here at WP:LAW. In quite a few of the articles on cases, including even some of the well-known cases, the majority of the article is cited from and attributed to the case itself. This is poor practice, and does not comply with the guidelines at WP:OR. Specifically, it violates the policies regarding the use of primary sources, which we are instructed to avoid here on WP (the specific section is at WP:PSTS). A relevant excerpt from the primary source section:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

I will endeavor to improve articles I work on by replacing case citations with citations to reputable secondary sources like prominent books, law review articles, and commentary in casebooks. I invite others to consider these thoughts and share your viewpoints. Additionally, I would like to suggest that, if the community agrees, a note on this subject be added to the MOS:LEGAL page, perhaps in the "Article Content" section. Thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I actually disagree with you on much of this. You are presenting a primary/secondary source issue, however in most cases the report of the case is itself a secondary source (it is for all reported UK and US cases anyway), and where the courts own transcript of the case is being used, it will normally contain enough information that "interpretation" is not generally needed. It is perfectly reasonable to state a fact or opinion sourced directly to a case without it being original research. There are pervasive issues here, but they are actually caused by the widely inconsistent and incorrect citations used by non-lawyers to cite a law report, or people not citing anything at all. My advice would infact be to replace these citations with citations to the correct law report, as citing the case directly is already discouraged in MOS:LEGAL. I hope this makes things a bit clearer for your, but I do not think changing MOS:LEGAL is going to suddenly improve anyones ability to format correct citations, and there isn't really an original research issue involved. Dysklyver 23:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Court opinions are--quite literally--interpretations of primary sources. The primary sources being statutes, regulations, the common law, and other court decisions. Such interpretation is reliable within the court's jurisdiction. Don't confuse the majority decision in Roe v. Wade as a primary source--the primary sources being interpreted by it are the US Constitution, federal and state statutes, the common law, other court decisions, and previous events as interpreted by lower courts. In as much as books, law review articles, and commentary in casebooks are interpretation and commentary on these non-primary sources, they are tertiary sources. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • As for primary and secondary legislation, there should be more caution. For example, when interpreting a regulation, one could use the Federal Register discussion published alongside it to interpret it. For example, there is the Volcker Rule, there are the several pages of the implementing regulations, and then there are the 272 pages of discussion of them both beginning at 79 FR 5535. Those 272 pages are not a primary source of the Volcker Rule. Then of course there are the court cases like I mention and the tertiary sources like you mention, interpreting the interpretations. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • But, as with any source, it is easy to edit into Wikipedia what the source does not support. But while on a Supreme Court case article, using the majority opinion as a source should probably be limited to fairly direct quoting (preferably from the syllabus in the law report), the opinion as used in an article about, e.g., abortion law, is not a primary source. Just keep to what it actually says and realize that sources can themselves be wrong. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver and Int21h: I'm not sure how a case, especially in the context of an article on the case itself, could possibly be construed to be anything other than a primary source. Here's an object lesson: Dysklyver's user page makes clear that he or she is a Westlaw user. Go to Westlaw, search for something, then narrow your search results to "Secondary sources" and watch all of the cases immediately disappear. Unless things are radically different in the current UK legal system (and I don't think they are), I think I have the persuasive side here.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
A case is not the same as an opinion. A Wikipedia article is not about the documents (the court opinions, orders, etc.), but about the controversies (court cases). The Roe v. Wade majority opinion of the US Supreme Court simply cannot be an original source of information concerning the Roe v. Wade court case/controversy, which started five years prior. The primary sources in that article would be trial court testimony, pleadings, US Code of Laws, etc.; the Supreme Court majority opinion interpreted those sources, as did the concurrence and dissent opinions. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, if I randomly chose a case on Wikipedia, say Walter v Lane, then search for it on Westlaw, I can chose between the report on the case by the law reporters that covered the case, or Westlaws own case summary. There is also a small icon which shows it has been rejected or followed as a precedent in later cases, this links to a table of subsequent cases where it has been cited. The law reporters summarize the main arguments made by the solicitors, and the judges main argument is normally shown verbatim, along with interpretation or summary if it was particularly long or contained many points of law. None of the case reports on Westlaw are primary sources, Westlaw provides secondary case reports by law reporters, not verbatim transcripts, which are normally restricted from the public, and this appears to be the main point here. I agree with the main points made by int21h that one should be careful with legislation, as for obvious reasons this is supplied verbatim, normally without interpretation. Dysklyver 11:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The argument and practical distinction the two of you are making is, if I understand them correctly, one that is incongruous with the current Anglo-American legal scholarship. It is of course true that we on Wikipedia are not strictly beholden to follow the exact practices of the scholarship of an article's field, it does seem to have been generally accepted as a best practice. As far I am aware, the writing centers of all major law schools emphasize that case opinions, like legislation and statutes, are primary sources (E.g., Georgetown, etc.) Obviously, this definition is made in the context of actually performing legal analysis and preparing to practice law. But altering that distinction simply because Wikipedia is an encyclopedic venue flies in the face of both reason and the spirit of the distinction itself. By int21h's definition, which I'm not saying is inherently unreasonable, the title of "Roe v. Wade" would need to be changed to "The dispute between Roe and Wade that started in 1968, was litigated before SCOTUS in 1973, and continues to the present". The lead sentence of the article unequivocally states that the second one is not the subject of the article, it is the "landmark decision" itself. How one could construe the case opinion to not be a primary source for the decision as a topic is beyond me. It would be akin to using one of the Chinese dynastic histories as a secondary source simply because it collected and analyzed other material (in the Sinological field they are most definitely considered primary sources). By that definition, anything other than stream-of-consciousness dictation could be argued to be a secondary source. For the notable articles, there is a plethora of excellent law review articles, books, and casebooks that give solid secondary descriptions and analysis of the subjects, and there is no reason to be fiddling with opinions directly.
Anyway, I've given my two cents on the issue and thank you both for your responses. If nobody takes my position I can rest easy knowing I've said my piece.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
My point is really that little of an appellate opinion is "new information" or "new thoughts" making it a primary source for much of an article. Much is a restatements of well known law and cases, previous findings and rulings, and assessments of primary sources. An opinion is certainly not a primary source for the previous rulings and findings. The new information is does give--the crux of the decision-opinion-ruling--is easily dealt with using secondary sources--yes I guess they are--such as reviews etc.
But here's a catch: you can cite the decision itself verbatim without modification, en masse, but for anything else other than US federal works, that is WP:COPYVIO. So we end up restating the review ourselves. That's dangerous. Also, Roe v. Wade is WP:COMMON, and compare it to the Nordyke v. King "decision".
So sure use more sources, hey, nice, but I think this is more about challenging sources per WP:OR and presumably removing the claim it supports per WP:V. Recognize what's primary source info--what was changed, made different--and what isn't: yes you can cite the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS opinion itself in the Roe v. Wade article as a source for a claim "abortion was illegal in Texas when Jane Roe filed suit in March 1970" because that opinion is simply not a primary source for that info. Anyway yes, a long discussion. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Part of the confusion is that in legal terminology, primary and secondary sources have a distinct legal meaning which is nothing to do with the encyclopedic meaning of the terms. A primary source is any source which is the law, cases and legislation are in themselves law, and must be followed by lower courts, specifically the orbiter dictum recorded in the case is a binding precedent. Secondary sources are materials, cases and legislation which refer to the law in a persuasive way but are not legally binding as precedent in that jurisdiction or in that court.. For example a US state level case would be a secondary source in the UK courts, and a primary source in the lower courts to it in the US (but only in the state it happened in), it would be a secondary source to higher or equal courts, and in other states. Likewise with legislation and treaties. This is not comparable with the primary, secondary, tertiary sources used by Wikipedia. This usage is peculiar to the common law jurisdictions, and does not apply to civil law jurisdictions. Dysklyver 11:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse vs. child molestation

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Child sexual abuse#Child sexual abuse vs. child molestation again. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to differentiate child sexual abuse from child molestation in the lead of (and/or possibly lower in) the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Bluebook Citation Template Requested

I requested a Bluebook Citation Template at the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey. If you're not familiar with the Wishlist Survey (I wasn't), the blurb on it is: "Submit proposals for features and changes that you want the Community Tech team to work on, or comment on other proposals, and help to make them better!" My proposal is #7 in the Citations category. If you agree, please write a brief note of support to the Discussion section of the proposal. Comments close on 19 November 2017. Thanks! (Of course, if there is a reason to not support such a template, please enlighten me!)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I just added the following to my proposal:

Good golly Miss Molly! In looking for something else related to legal citation, I stumbled across a Bluebook journal template and a Bluebook website template. So, I reckon my proposal is superfluous, unless someone can think of any other Bluebook templates (books?) that might be needed.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Legal reference management software article?

Do we currently have an article on legal reference management software? The only thing I can find is Reference management software among legal scholars, which a one-paragraph section of Reference management software; and a few articles under Category:Legal citators.

If we don't have such an article, I'll add it to my to-do list. (Of course, if someone else creates such an article that would be awesome and I promise to contribute.) Content would be similar to what these law school library sites cover: Research Management and Citation, Citation Management Tools: Home, Online Citation Tools: For Academic Writing, and maybe even a chart like this superb article: Comparison of reference management software.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

COI editing from Russell Beck

Given his expertise, I thought it might be better to discuss here rather than at WP:COIN or WP:RSN. Some his edits seem rather spammy, even without the coi. His userpage might push WP:UP#PROMO a bit. I'm not seeing enough to bother with COIN, though his resistance to simply start discussions on article talk pages won't get him far.

He's written "Trade Secrets Acts Compared to the UTSA", a comparison chart. It was removed from Defend Trade Secrets Act as unreliable, and he was informed that it should be discussed on the article talk page. I've subsequently removed it from Defend Trade Secrets Act, Trade secret, and Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Even if it is considered reliable, it is more a resource for details on the topic than a reference verifying the content in the articles. It might be considered as an external link in Defend Trade Secrets Act and Uniform Trade Secrets Act if editors don't think it appropriate to use as a reference. What do others think of it being used as a reference or external link?

The links I removed from Non-compete clause are not on the general subject of non-compete clauses, rather one is a US comparison chart and the other specific to Massachusetts law. Does anyone think either could be incorporated into the article as a reference?

As a technical aside, I couldn't get the wordpress copy to load at all, but he has copies on both his other sites: http://www.beckreedriden.com/trade-secrets-laws-and-the-utsa-a-50-state-and-federal-law-survey-chart/ and https://www.faircompetitionlaw.com/2017/08/13/trade-secrets-laws-and-the-utsa-a-50-state-and-federal-law-survey-chart-updated-for-texas/ --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeking Input on Draft Article

Over the past few days, I have drafted an article about a recent Minnesota Supreme Court case involving the Minnesota Legislature and Governor Mark Dayton. It's still a work in progress and probably in need of copy editing, but I feel like I am to the stage where I could use some outside input. In particular, I'm looking for guidance in making sure the article follows MOS:LAW. (I had to make an educated guess at the correct form of the article title.) Additionally, I made no references to the Supreme Court rulings themselves because I am unsure of how to cite them correctly. I would appreciate any assistance you can offer on this article. ebbillings (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

See Statewide Standard Citation on the MN Judicial Branch website.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion (Legal citation and Case citation)

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Legal case#Merge Legal citation and Case citation.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< , 10:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Public-domain and parallel citations

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Public-domain and parallel citations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Law

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 16:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced statements regarding Separation of Powers according to Montesquieu

Please see Talk:Separation_of_powers#Attribution_to_Montesquieu. Anybody have access to pages 223-4 of the 2003 book Democracy and the Rule of Law, Adam Przeworski, JM Maravall eds? Debresser (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Splitting public-policy from technical material at Computer security

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Computer security#Some initial ideas on a split and an overhaul.

Summary: The present article is a mish-mash of material of a general nature (technical, academic, practices, history, terms, incidents, notable-figures) and material of a socio-political nature (infrastructural, regulatory, legal, corporate, financial, espionage and cyberwar, public impacts).

This started as an RM discussion but turned into a scope one. I've proposed that a Cybersecurity article (using the term favored in technology-and-public-policy circles) should be a spinoff, per WP:SUMMARY, for the second group of material, leaving the bulk of the more general info at Computer security (the basic, non-jargon, descriptive term for the field). This would be in keeping with Cyberwarfare, Internet privacy, Internet censorship, Genetically modified food controversies, and numerous other clear splits between technology and technology policy articles (sometimes multiple such articles, e.g. Electronic cigarette → Regulation of electronic cigarettes, Safety of electronic cigarettes, and several others – but let's just start with one here).

I've done a section-by-section review of what needs to be done, but it's just one opinion, so additional input is sought.

Legal: In particular, we have a fair amount of regulatory and governmental details (arranged jurisdictionally) but not a lot of legal material (despite that being a heading there). I've raised a concern about lumping it all together. It's anachronistic to treat legislative and case law about computer intrusion, online privacy, etc., as a "cybersecurity" matter if it predates that entire concept. It can also be conceptually wrong to do so, e.g. when the laws and cases in question are about constitutional or commercial privacy, tort law for damages, and other mostly civil-statue matters that are unrelated to things like national security, infrastructure protection, and similar public-policy spheres.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  10:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Bluebook abbreviations, more systematic this time

I'm trying to clear Category:Infobox_journals_with_missing_Bluebook_abbreviations as best I can, however the list we're using [6]/[7] at WP:JOURNALS are rather limited. Two questions

  1. Can we instead use the Indigo Book to determine abbreviations, or are there differences with the Bluebook concerning abbreviations?
  2. What journals infoboxes should get these abbreviations? Only US journals? Any journal remotely related to law? What about non-law journals?

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't really sat down and compared Indigo/Baby Blue to the current Bluebook, but my understanding is there ought to be very few differences. The main ones might be for law schools that were founded after 1958.
My honest advice, though, would be to get an 18th or 19th edition via interlibrary loan or (if you're feeling generous) off Amazon for $0.99. The 18th and 19th editions feature exact citations for many specific periodicals, whereas the 20th edition (and, oddly, the 1958 edition that Baby Blue is based on) just give tables for how to abbreviate place names and common journal title words that could be used for any journal in any discipline.
That actually takes me to your second question: I'd say the infoboxes for any journals whose exact names appear in the 18th and 19th edition ought to have abbreviations. Those that aren't in the 18th or 19th edition, include a Bluebook abbreviation if it's an English-language law journal (U.S. or otherwise). I say English-language because, though the 20th edition has some abbreviations for use with Latin American journals (i.e., "Derecho" to "Der."), there aren't nearly enough abbreviations for other title words to justify abbreviating them in legal publications in my experience. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about the correspondence between Bluebook and Indigo. Here are a couple of points to keep in mind, from the 20th edition of the Bluebook:
  • "The name of the periodical should appear in large and small capitals whether it is a journal, magazine, or newspaper, and should be abbreviated according to tables T13 (periodical abbreviations) and T10 (geographic abbreviations)." - 16.1 Basic Citation Forms (p. 159)
  • "Abbreviations not listed in this book should be avoided unless substantial space will be saved and the resulting abbreviation is unambiguous." - 6.1 Abbreviations (p. 87)
  • Legal citations in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries are different. Bluebook has detailed instructions on how to cite "foreign" statutes, cases, etc., in Rule 20 Foreign Materials (p. 179), and several tables, e.g., T2.42 United Kingdom (p. 472).
  • See also United Kingdom Legal Research Guide (Georgetown Law School)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating them for 18th/19th edition listings sounds good. I can focus on that. If they're not listed, I'll set |bluebook=no and suppress the error messages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Advice on law firm article

Hi. I need a balanced view on the article Reid Collins & Tsai. This is my first law article ever. It is a COI contribution (properly declared). There are mixed views on the article. User:7&6=thirteen (apparently the guy with the law background) looked at it and said it is a good article with the balanced view and factual. Another user, User:onel5969 looked at it and said "Looking at your draft, if I reviewed it I would decline it, since it is very promotional". I am puzzled. I've checked some of the other law firm articles on Wikipedia and it looks like Reid Collins & Tsai fits most of the criteria for law firm articles (if not all). Am I wrong? If yes, how could the article be improved? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the tone (which was substantially toned down from earlier drafts) is encyclopedic and the coverage factual and reliably sourced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Law firm articles are hard as hell to write in my opinion, so I commend you on making the effort at least. It is so rare that there's actually material about the firm as a firm rather than the cases where it's been involved. This is a huge problem when it comes to assessing notability, because what look like relevant sources will often turn out not to give the firm significant coverage. That said, it looks like RCT has been profiled a few times in the usual places, so that's a good thing.
    Looking at what you've got, there are a few things that strike me, as an attorney, as being kind of puffery. Like in the lead paragraph, it says two of the founding partners are members of the ABA... my reaction is "so what?".
    The other thing that sticks out in this sense is the sentence in the practice areas section about the Credit Suisse case. The sentence, RCT's most famous work was a 2014-2016 case against Credit Suisse for defrauding investors in the Lake Las Vegas development. has three news sources from the time of the case talking about case events, none of which appear to support the critical claim of the sentence, that RCT's work in that case is their "most famous" work, just that they were involved in the case. I would advise taking care with subjective statements; Wikipedia is a bit nitpicky about being able to prove it with independent sources. Instead, you could use objective statements and figures that speak for themselves, like "RCT helped secure a $287M judgment against Credit Suisse in 2015, representing investors who alleged [blah blah blah]." If you've worked in legal advertising, you might think of it as a loose corollary to how state bars freak out over personal injury firms outright claiming they can get their clients more money, but have no problem with the same firm putting out an ad saying "We secured the largest jury verdict in [state] history for a neck injury: $55 million." I'm not saying you should work it the way I describe, just to note that there are issues with the claim the article makes about the Credit Suisse case and that it could be restated with objective facts in a way that may make your client just as happy while complying more closely with Wikipedia policy.
    Another thing I'd point out related to that sentence is that you don't need to lump it into the section on practice areas. Recall that the lead section of an article is supposed to be a summary of the overall contents, and ideally should have no information that isn't presented elsewhere in the article. I say this because the Credit Suisse case is discussed later in the history section; given it's clearly a major case RCT worked on, you could take it out of the practice areas section and mention it in the lead section.
    The rest of it is pretty good. Really, this isn't bad for a law firm article. There are some mistakes regarding formatting and such, but it's not bad. Hope this is helpful! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: thank you for your comments. Very helpful indeed! I have implemented some of your comments already. "Practice areas" seems to be a must have for such articles (I didn't have at the original article but added later after studying other law firm pages). I like how User:7&6=thirteen separated company "History" from "Cases" (is follows your comments on company having notability not related to cases) and will work a bit more on restructuring cases. Do you think it makes sense to add something like "Events and conferences"? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I had already moved the ABA membership to a footenote. I agree, "so what." They will take any lawyer in who is willing to pay the dues.
User:7&6=thirteen I have improved the footnotes. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I had a constitutional history professor, William Leslie, (in undergrad) who was rather proud of not belonging to the ABA. I don't remember why he was disdainful of ABA membership. But I distinctly remember him reciting in that context:
Birds of a feather flock together
And so do pigs and swine.
Rats and mice shall have their choice
And so I shall have mine.
But that is a digression here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
ABA membership of partners is rather irrelevant to a law firm. The ABA is a voluntary organization which any lawyer in good standing can join, so it is like being a member of a golf club or a Toys for Tots donor. It does not rise to the level of being worthy of mention even in biographical articles, much less company articles. An exception would be if a member was something like President of the ABA. bd2412 T 18:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412: Thank you. Looks like we have a consensus on that. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bbarmadillo: I think "events and conferences" is bordering on "so what" territory but it all depends on what it is. I think my reaction, though, is more a matter of what I'd put into an article that I was writing rather than something I'd go out of my way to remove from an article that I was reading. In other words, I think it's a matter of taste. My personal preference, though, would be to keep it to stuff that got coverage in the bar journals or local mainstream press, rather than a list of events the firm itself has on its website. That way you'd at least have an argument that those things merit due weight in the article because they have coverage in independent reliable sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: Thanks. No, they don't have these. It is mostly links to the conferences' websites. So I better not add them. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Cole Memorandum

Project members are invited to help expand and improve the newly-created Cole Memorandum article. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_21"