Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category- Jewish Supreme Court justices.

Was told to bring it up here before I created the Category, but I misbehaved and created the category already. Hope it is OK. I'm new around here and I am not clear as to what is a legit Category and what isn't. There are Categories for Jewish Jurists and Jewish Lawyers so I figured there could/should be one for Jewish Supreme Court justices.--LAZY 1L 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope you have better luck that the sh**storm that I blundered into when I created Category:Black lawyers. --Legis (talk - contributions) 08:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Feedback/rating for International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

I would like some feedback, and ideally a rating, for the above article. I appreciate that this is a little outside the remit of Wikiproject Law (and is probably more suited to Wikipedia:WikiProject International law but I have already put in a request for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback and on the International Law Wikiproject and have had no rsponse. If anyone would be kind enough to provide feedback/rate the article, I'd really appreciate it. --Jim (Talk) 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We've got a real lack of people working on international law topics at the moment - I repeatedly tried to find someone willing to create a convention for ICJ case names (which are titled all over the place) some months ago, and couldn't get so much as one response. Rebecca 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that, though I believe I'm really more a part of the problem than the solution given my limited scope of knowledge. I read through the ICJ nuke article, and while I found it an interesting case, I just don't know enough to comment intelligently. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys. It's a shame there aren't many people working on international law topics; I might be able to do something about this so I'll send off any email to a few people that might be able to help. One query about the article you may be able to answer: the second paragraph contains the following sentence: "In addition, the proceedings raised issues such as the possibility of non liquet and the status of "Lotus approach".". What is the "Lotus approach"? I've tracked down a reference to it in the ICJ Opinion, but can't make much sense of it. --Jim (Talk) 12:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Laws of war discussion at Military History Project

In case anyone here is interested, a discussion about starting a Laws of War or Warcrimes task force is ongoing at the military history project: [1]. Cla68 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics lists

  • I've been working on serveral missing topics lists for the past year and I was curious if several may be of any help to the project, specifically those based on Michael Newton's Encyclopedia of High-Tech Crime and Crime-Fighting, Carl Sifakis's Encyclopedia of American Prisons, Mitchel P. Roth's Prisons and Prison Systems: A Global Encyclopedia, and Cops, Crooks, and Criminologists: An International Biographical Dictionary of Law Enforcement, Updated Edition by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod ? Also, I noticed there was a proposal for a possible WikiProject related to crime and I was curious if such a project was neccessary from WikiProject Law's point of view ? MadMax 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to WikiProject Law Enforcement

Would anyone mind adding us as a sister WikiProject, WikiProject Law Enforcement? Thanks →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert N. C. Nix, Jr.

Could anyone take a look at the Robert N. C. Nix, Jr. article (former Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the first African American Chief of any state's court). I've done some fairly massive edits on it (it failed to mention that he had died when I first saw it), and I'd like to add a section about the major decisions he wrote, but before I put that work in I'd like to get some feedback on what's already up there. Thanks, JCO312 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Law

Portal:Law needs help. The Article of the Week, Picture of the Week, and other weekly features are not set up. The main person maintaining it is probably too busy to take care of it or on wikibreak? The portal can probably use a few people to work on it, so that one person doesn't have to do everything. If anyone wants to help, but not sure how to update these things, I'd be happy to show how. --Aude (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I set up the rotation system for the portal, and pretty much assumed that someone would fill in the blanks when I was too busy. And I've been too busy! bd2412 T 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade FAR

Roe v. Wade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Old proposals, new proposals

Hi everybody, I am a new volunteer for WP:Law. I see there are a lot of case pages that need updating. I'll start with Morisette and Williamson, because those will be easy. I'll follow the conventions as best I am able. By the way, I'm still hoping someone will help with my Beale bio idea, but I will do it myself if need be. Non Curat Lex 08:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Self-follow-up: I have another idea. Holmes-and-the-law. Not Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. I mean Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Every once in a while, someone drops in an allusion or out-and-out quotation. For example, has anyone read Judge Shira Sheindlin's opinion in _Radioactive J.V. v. Manson_, 153 F. Supp. 2d 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)? The case should be familiar to regular readers of Dean Symeonides' annual review of Conflicts cases, or fans of the band called Garbage.

Case citation?

Could somebody knowledgeable attempt to track a case citation for the Love Shack article? It is said there that the song was quoted by Bill Pryor in a 2005 11th circuit court of appeal. The case name would probably look like "Zibtluda Corp. v. Gwinett County". Circeus 13:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I’ve found the opinion and put a citation in the article. However, I claim no knowledge about the proper way to cite this kind of thing. On a related note, {{cite court}} could be useful for this but needs work. —xyzzyn 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Weird things are going there. Could someone check? Look like a pretty incoherent opinion piece. Both now and also before the latest changes, as far as I've seen. No idea how to fix that. Lupo 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed per my edit summary. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I left a long message (probably too long) at the relevant user's talk page in regard to the text, as it was readded. I encouraged the user to post at the Clarence Thomas talk page. The text is original research, POV (for example, it attempts to argue that Thomas is a "true originalist", among other things), and unencyclopedic (it reads like an academic lecture). That said, the article does need to discuss Thomas' jurisprudence more than it does currently. I don't know if the user is going to post at talk or not, but I've added the article to my watchlist and would appreciate it if others did the same, as the text is going to need a lot of work if even a portion of it is going to be part of an encyclopedia article. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

United States v. Butler

The statement "The idea that Congress has authority separate and distinct from powers granted by enumeration was (and still is) controversial." in that article is marked for a citation. I have no idea whether the statement or the {{citation needed}} tag is completely impertinent, though, as I am completely unacquainted with law in general, much less US constitutional law, but I assume the answer will be obvious to anybody here.Circeus 19:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics

I've created a list of missing topics about law and law enforcement. I've tried to find any relevant articles with an equivalent content but I'd be grateful is those more proficient than me could have a look at it. - Skysmith 13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoxbox Suggestion

Could I suggest that your infoboxes, if they don't already, try to include links to analagous articles in other countries. For example, I'm pretty sure that computer hacking etc is illegal in the US but I don't know what laws govern it. Would be handy to have a link between the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and analagous laws in other countries and governing bodies (e.g. the EU). --Seans Potato Business 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that is a job or a "see also" section.Circeus 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

New article

Hello all, I created a new article United States v. Curtiss-Wright. It still needs improvement and more of what the case law says.Charleenmerced Talk 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Merged and redirected to existing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

English law

I have some serious concerns about the quality of our article on English law, and have raised them on the Talk page. Please contribute to the discussion and help improve the article:

Thanks. -- Mais oui! 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First look deal

I recently created the article First look deal. I'm not a lawyer so I have little understanding of what a first-look agreement is. I linked it in from the William Monahan article and the term comes up many times across Wikipedia. Anyways, you guys must know what this agreement entails. Could you improve it enough that a basic understanding can be taken away? A simple paragraph would be great. Thanks-BillDeanCarter 12:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am no IP lawyer, but I have chipped in a little more info. Suggest someone with greater expertise takes it forward as needed. --Legis (talk - contributions) 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating. Thanks. It confirms what I thought, that a first-look deal can "chill" the bidding on a sale. Do you have any idea why certain parties would enter into a first-look deal? In the instance of William Monahan I wonder if it wasn't so that he could obtain the rights to the novel he wanted to adapt from Warner Bros.-BillDeanCarter 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Turnaround (film) && production write-through contract

I don't want to seem too greedy, but these are two other entertainment lawyer-like articles that are linked to and currently non-existent in the William Monahan article I've been working on. I can intuit what these terms mean, but that kind of inference can only be so accurate.

  • The production write-through contract article is very specific to a screenwriter, but it would be great if someone could expand on how these contracts are done and how often. I haven't found any information on the term on the internet, other than the brief mention by Monahan.
I wonder if the "chain of title" has anything to do with the production write-through contract. It does help keep the "chain of title"/derivative works in the hands of the original copyright owner. Again, I intuit, not know.-BillDeanCarter 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have started the article. It's stylistically based on the article First look deal and currently unreferenced. If someone here can improve it I would appreciate it.-BillDeanCarter 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Turnaround deal sounds like a pretty general term that probably already has an article at Wikipedia that I just don't know where to find. It's probably a kind of deal that spans many industries.

If you can help me out with these articles that would be a great help. It gives my article on the screenwriter William Monahan a little more gravitas.-BillDeanCarter 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan article under review at FAC

Hello. You guys have recently helped me with some of the nuances in the William Monahan article. I just self-nominated this article on the recent Academy Award winner for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan at WP:FAC. If you're interested please give it a read and comment at FAC if you will, as well as copyedit if you wish. It's a fascinating read. I have taken an entertainment lawyer-like angle in some of the sections to demonstrate the business side of being a screenwriter. I hope you enjoy reading it.-BillDeanCarter 20:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Law related article on AFD

Infobox Judge

I'm not sure if this is of interest to this project, but there is now a generic {{Infobox Judge}}. Examples of its use can be seen in all of the U.S., Canadian, and Oregon Supreme Court Justice articles. --PhantomS 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Law firms within the scope of this project?

They are not mentioned on the project page nor has this been mentioned in this talkspace or in the previous archives. Or would they belong in {{WikiProject Business & Economics}}? BrokenSphere 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Law template

Is there such a thing as a law template? Today´s featured article is same-sex marriage in Spain. In the article there is a table with the name of the law and important dates and also the name of the institution which made the law: the Spanish Parliament. It would be nice to have a template to put into all the articles about laws and bill projects, like Brazilian Congressional Bill No. 1151, for instance. A.Z. 07:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. I will slap one on. --Legis (talk - contributions) 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Royal Assent FAR

Royal Assent has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Harvey Frank Robbins

This article is really about a conflict between Mr Robbins and the Bureau of Land Management which has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court. I recently expanded it, but I am (1) not a lawyer and (2) Australian, so I'm fairly sure I've made mistakes. Could someone competent please do a quick cleanup? (And, hey, a thorough cleanup would not go astray either ...) Thanks, CWC 12:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations

I don't understand how to write the law bit of a article on legislation, so I would be grateful if anyone wants to pitch it on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations. Ta. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Learned intermediary doctrine

Could someone have a glance at a new article Learned intermediary doctrine? It's just avoided deletion on other criteria, but really needs someone au fait with law to check it out. For instance, is it biased or original research? Tearlach 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United States FAR

Supreme Court of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hi, guys. Anyone could give us a hand with the article Civil Code of Argentina? It has been recently translated from Spanish, bt none of us knows much about law. If you have any doubts or there's something ambiguous, leave a meesage in the article's talk page. Thanks! --Mariano(t/c) 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Preemption needs cleanup

The article entitled Preemption (law) needs major cleanup, particularly the section on ERISA. --Eastlaw 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dred Scott v. Sandford FAR

Dred Scott v. Sandford has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki Cooperation

First, sorry for my english. I've wrote it is en-3, but it's mostly a joke, I think... :/ So, if I make a mistake, please correct the message with the [edit] button !
Secondly, I don't know if the message is in the right place, so please move it..

There is a discussion on fr.wikipedia about a interwiki cooperation for Law projects. According to fr:User:Boeb'is, this cooperation could take place for reviewing translations (but (in French) project don't really like the translations...) ; each Law project could also create a page where other Wikimedians could give their commments to improve the quality and exchange experiences and opportunities, each time it is possible ; but without having to speak the language of the Wikipedia. It could also be useful to point national-POV (which is a real problem on a Wikipedia where at least 90 % of the editors are.. French..).

I also add to this that we have, on (in French) and (in English) projects, a WP:1 subproject. Since the aim of Wikipedia is not to build a French Encyclopedia, no more a British or American encyclopedia, I think we should have common policies, at least to attribute the top importance level to an article.

I don't know if this effort could have some success here ; I don't know where it could take place (here, or directly on m: ?). But I simply hope that with more legal editors, a better encyclopedic content will be provided. Erasoft24 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for help with a Supreme Court article

The article in question is Dowling v. United States, an article about a SCOTUS case that dealt with the relationship between copyrighted works and a theft statute. The problem lies in the "Potential significance of the case" section, where (in my view) the editor Kidradical is severely misusing citations in order to promote a POV. He misleadingly cites quotations from SCOTUS cases when the quotations concerned are actually from circuit court opinions, plus he uses dicta from concurring and dissenting opinions and presents them as if they constitute binding precedent, all in an apparent attempt to shoehorn the POV that copyright infringement = theft into this article (an argument that doesn't belong in this article in any case). I've tried discussing the issue with him but unfortunately he is unwilling to reach any sort of compromise, reverts any attempt to change what he wrote, and is being rather belligerent. I'd really appreciate it if anyone here could take a look at the page. As far as I can tell the current version is very misleading. Cheers! -- Hux 10:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, Hux, I'm not sure to make of your somewhat secretive discussion here rather than on the article's discussion page -- I don't believe anyone who has contributed there has ever given you reason to think that your comments were unwelcome, even when they happened to be wrong, and if you'll read through the discussion you'd see that it's actually not the case. People aren't "belligerent" just because they disagree with you, or "shoehorning POV" simply because they happen to know more about a particular subject than you; they're just trying to see that the article is reported as accurately as possible.
In fact, I think it's fair to say that there has been extraordinary patience exercised by many of the knowledgeable people attempting to enlighten you and others about the specifics of the case and more generally how Supreme Court decisions work. Copyright in this day and age can be an extremely provocative subject, which is why tensions (such as yours) can sometimes run high, but it's also why it's so important that the cases are reported accurately.
I understand that some of the subject matter may frustrate you, but recognize that you've lived in Europe almost your entire life, with no formal legal training, and you're looking to assert expertise over United States Supreme Court decisions. It's not a reflection on your intelligence, it's just a practice that, as the saying goes, would be naturally fraught with peril.
By way of example, you write above that the some of the citations are from circuit courts -- when even the most basic U.S. legal training would alert someone to the fact that they all come from SCOTUS, simply by looking at the case citation. (In case citations, the "U.S." in between the two numbers indicates that the case is from the Supreme Court; a circuit court will generally have an "F" (for the "Federal" reporter) between the two numbers.)
The discussion page for the article contains similar miscomprehensions. For example, you didn't appear to recognize the limiting language in the holding, or even know what limiting language was. You seemed to think that the ruling in the case was "dicta". You also seemed to believe that precedent and dicta were the same thing -- though now, above, you appear to contradict that, and recognize that they're different.
Other laypersons who have sought to edit the article, with obviously some level of emotional investment, make similar missteps. Reading through the discussion page, you can see that one person didn't know that all goods were physical; that U.S. Supreme Court decisions were part of case law; and in fact had never even read the case that he was editing. Another person declared that there is no U.S. law that characterizes copyright infringement as "theft," when the No Electronic Thefts Act of 1997 does exactly that. (One person even said he had conducting independent research to confirm his viewpoint by asking a "law degree student," who had been writing a paper on "US law".) Other similar instances can be found throughout the discussions page.
Moreover, of the quotations from the cases that you complain about, only one comes from a dissenting opinion, which was included to show that viewpoints on both sides of the copyright divide use the word "theft" to describe copyright infringement. (It is likewise noted that both Congress and the DOJ, as part of the executive branch, use that same language, and the discussion page similarly points out that professional associations of IP attorneys use it as well.) Of the rest of the cases cited, two were even decided unanimously (9-0). The cases themselves were intended only as a selection of examples from the body of case law, and range in dates from 1908 all the way up to the Grokster (2005) decision. (The Dowling article is of a case from 1985).
However, if the one quote from a dissenting opinion truly troubles you, it's just as simple for me to remove it; which you could have easily found out if you had made such a proposal on the discussions page -- rather than quietly coming here and claiming that a person was refusing to compromise.
In all this, though, I would point out that you have already made it clear on the discussions page that you "emphatically do not consider copyright infringement to be 'theft of intellectual property'." (emphasis yours.) If you've already formed such a strong POV on the subject, without regard to what the Supreme Court and others have had to say on the subject, it may be time to re-examine your ability to remain impartial when judging the neutrality of the article.
All said, you're welcome to return to the discussions page and bring your concerns there, and your input (at least by me) remains valued. Kidradical 09:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I find this response from you quite astonishing on several levels. Firstly, categorizing any post on a Wikipedia talk page, all of which are publicly accessible, as "somewhat secretive" is absurd. My reason for coming here with this request was clearly stated above and this is, inarguably, an appropriate place to make such a request. On the Dowling talk page you present yourself as professionally qualified in matters of US law and imply this as prima facie evidence that my arguments are flawed (despite the fact that you have no idea as to the extent of my legal training; you've simply assumed that I have none). Further, some of the reasoning you've supplied for those dismissals is, to my mind, suspect (e.g. "dicta doesn't have precedental weight"), hence my request for comments in a venue where qualified parties are likely to see it. Your objection to my making this request, particularly the manner in which you are objecting, speaks volumes.
Secondly, it's clear that you resent my characterization of your behavior. However, anyone who wishes to check the edit history of that article can see that indeed you are reverting any changes I try to make to your edits. They can also see that my attempt to seek compromise has been met with nothing but patronizing variations of, "No. I'm right, you're wrong". Your saccharine stance here lies in stark contrast to the dismissive, superior attitude you've displayed on the Dowling page. Such duplicity also speaks volumes.
Thirdly, and in my opinion most disturbingly, rather than simply address the issues being raised, you choose to bolster your position by misrepresenting the discussion on the Dowling page and indulging in what can only be described as character assassination. For example:
  • "I think it's fair to say that there has been extraordinary patience exercised by many of the knowledgeable people attempting to enlighten you" - You are the only person attempting such "enlightenment", so this is a clear attempt to falsely present the discussion as one of multiple, reasonable people on one side and a single antagonist on the other. And if you think that comments such as, "your logic is broken", qualify as patient then we must be operating under different meanings of that word.
  • "Copyright in this day and age can be an extremely provocative subject, which is why tensions (such as yours) can sometimes run high", and, "I understand that some of the subject matter may frustrate you" - I'm neither tense nor frustrated by the subject matter. This attempt to paint me as such (and thus imply that I am ignorant, confused and being unreasonable) is dishonest.
  • "recognize that you've lived in Europe almost your entire life" - This is a dismissal ad hominem. Wikipedia content speaks for itself and is to be evaluated on the basis of what it actually states. Where editors are from and how long they have lived there (or anywhere else) is irrelevant.
  • "with no formal legal training" - This is also an ad hominem dismissal. It is also not fact; it is simply an assumption that you have chosen to make.
  • "you write above that the some of the citations are from circuit courts -- when even the most basic U.S. legal training would alert someone to the fact that they all come from SCOTUS" - This is a patronizing mischaracterization as well as a dismissal ad hominem. I did not say that they came "from circuit courts" and am well aware they are SCOTUS citations. My point was that you were citing circuit court opinions that were themselves being cited in SCOTUS opinions and presenting them simply as SCOTUS citations in order to give them more weight.
  • "you didn't appear to recognize the limiting language in the holding, or even know what limiting language was" - Another mischaracterization. I am perfectly aware of the limiting language in the holding. The point you're missing is that this fact is irrelevant to the argument I was making regarding the case's relevance in file sharing debates.
  • "You seemed to think that the ruling in the case was "dicta"" - A third mischaracterization. At no point did I argue that the ruling as a whole constitutes dicta - that's obviously absurd. I was simply pointing out that dicta can create precedent, something you appear not to realize.
  • "You also seemed to believe that precedent and dicta were the same thing" - And a fourth. I never presented any such implication because - and this may shock you - I know they're different!
  • The paragraph that begins "Other laypersons..." - A clear attempt to align my comments with those of others whom you similarly dimiss ad hominem, despite the fact that edits made by one person have no relevance whatsoever to the accuracy of edits made by another.
  • "of the quotations from the cases that you complain about, only one comes from a dissenting opinion" - And? My point is that all those citations were dicta and thus do not create binding precedent, yet you presented them in a way that implies that they do. Your edit implied that SCOTUS is unambiguous in equating copyright infringement with theft and was positioned to counter the argument held by "file sharing advocates" that they are separate, an argument that you yourself inserted. (Never mind the fact that a discussion on whether or not copyright infringement can be equated with theft has no business being in that article anyway.)
  • "rather than quietly coming here and claiming that a person was refusing to compromise." - The fact that you have refused to compromise is evident to anyone who cares to look. You initiated an edit war, in response to which I immediately attempted to seek a compromise with you. From that point on you have simply refused to accept any changes to your edits. It's rather ridiculous for you to act like the aggrieved target of a false accusation when you say yourself, "Well, I don't think a compromise is in order".
  • "If you've already formed such a strong POV on the subject, without regard to what the Supreme Court and others have had to say on the subject, it may be time to re-examine your ability to remain impartial when judging the neutrality of the article." - Yet another ad hominem dismissal. The opinion of editors has no relevance to the accuracy of their edits, which stand for themselves and are evaluated on their own terms. Implying that a person is incapable of evaluating Wikipedia articles in terms of neutrality because they have an opinion on the subject that is not neutral is both fallacious and insulting. At no point have I ever inserted my opinion about copyright infringement and theft into this or any other article. I strive to remain NPOV with my edits and where I have erred, as humans inevitably do, I have never had a problem correcting them. For example, when you dismissed my suggestion for a change to the article on the basis of POV I replied, "I agree, however, that "tends to support" is POV so we should try to come up with something better." Also, your implication that I have not even considered what SCOTUS has to say on this topic is both factually incorrect and presumptuously rude.
Finally, I notice that a mere five minutes after you posted the above you went back to the Dowling article and removed (without saying why) the only remaining text in that article that made the point about Dowling being relevant in debates concerning whether copyright infringement and theft can be equated. I also note that you removed one of the SCOTUS citations. Something tells me this is no coincidence.
Anyway, you've had your response and I've had my chance to defend myself. If you want to continue with this then find another venue and let me know on my talk page. I'm only posting this here because it's relevant to the points I made in my request, plus I don't much like being defamed. -- Hux 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help finding law reference regarding drug-eluting stents...

Hi. I'm a physician writing an article about the history of interventional cardiology (It's on my user page right now, I'll move it into the wikipedia when I'm ready. Please don't edit in while it's in my userspace). I'm looking for some references to when drug-eluting stents first came out and there wasn't enough supply to meet demand. Some lawyers were advertising that they would sue cardiologists that put in a bare metal stent. I remember some billboards and newspaper advertisements about it when the drug eluting stents first came out. I thought it would make a nice counterpoint to the fears of the general population with drug eluting stents now. Ksheka 00:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Template I created that might be useful for this project - BAILII

Hello. Just wanted to drop a message here that I've created a template Template:Cite BAILII for linking and referencing judgments on the BAILII website. It's just undergone a revamp, although there are still a couple of issues with it. Those more knowledgable of templates and law might be able to help improve it! GDallimore (Talk) 20:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You might want to see {{Cite Case AU}}, we've been using this for some time at the WikiProject Australian law to link to various things on the AustLII site. --bainer (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that one when trying to write mine, but decided against using the #switch command since the links on bailii are a bit more consistent as far as I can tell. Since I thought it was a good idea in my template, I'd recommend including a parameter in yours that takes the names of the parties involved.GDallimore (Talk) 09:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And another few templates I thought I'd mention for anyone interested in patent law. {{cite patent}} {{ref patent}} and {{citeref patent}} are a trio of templates for citing patents at different levels of detail. The "Citeref patent" template in particular might be useful if you want to refer to patents listed in a bibliography in a similar way as with the {{harvnb}} template, for example. Happy templating! Suggestions for better names welcome! GDallimore (Talk) 09:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category: countryx Statutes

I was wondering if there's a reason there aren't specific categories like "Statutes of New Zealand" or "English Statutes". If there's a good reason and I've missed it, sorry. If there isn't, would it be a good idea to introduce it? --Matthew Proctor 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Try Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and its various sub-categories (and parallel categories for pre-UK parliaments). The US equivalent seems to be Category:United States federal legislation. You're right about New Zealand, though - articles on NZ statutes are just categorized under Category:New Zealand law - and there is no over-arching parent category linking statutes from all legal systems, which would be a good idea, not least because it would make navigation easier! What should it be called - Category:Legislation? Category:Statutes? Any other ideas? Bencherlite 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I think we both seem to have overlooked Category:Statutory law. The thing is though, Statutory law is distinct from actual statutes... I don't know, it just looks like a 'really big category' to me.
Anyway, I've gone ahead and made Category:New Zealand Statutes. I've also noticed that all the categories have differently formatted names. Maybe someone would like to come up with some guidelines? --Matthew Proctor 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_4"