Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Judiciary of Sweden

In the process of copy-editing an article about a Greek-Swedish journalist, I was looking at the article on Sweden and then the article Judiciary of Sweden. I was surprised to see that title, "Judiciary of Sweden". I had seen a discussion somewhere in which this was discussed regarding Finland. See User talk:Corinne/Archive 20#Judiciary, and in particular the link to Talk:Judicial system of Finland#Requested move 26 April 2016, where a proposal to change (move) the title of the article Judicial system of Finland to "Judiciary of Finland" was not approved. Why would the title of Judiciary of Sweden stay, when it was determined not to be correct for Finland? In my understanding of the words, "judiciary" does not mean the same thing as "judicial system".  – Corinne (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court Committee on Practice and Procedure

At Hearsay in English law I came across a reference to the "Supreme Court Committee on Practice and Procedure" from 1958. Clearly this could not refer to the present Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which was constituted in 2009. So I thought to add a note clarifying what it meant and what it was a committee of (the House of Commons?), only to find there was no information on Wikipedia as to the committee's origin and purpose. I guess "Supreme Court" means the "Supreme Court of Judicature" created by the Judicature Acts (renamed "Supreme Court" and then "Senior Courts"), i.e. the High Court, Crown Court and Court of Appeal, but I have very little information to go on. Apparently it was also called the Evershed Committee after Lord Evershed, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, though his article doesn't mention the committee; and it also included Kenneth Younger, barrister and Labour MP for Grimsby, but his article has no details. Does anyone know more? Does it warrant an article? Hairy Dude (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Morals_clause#References

Is there any way to beef up these references with more citations? Bearian (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Court of Appeal of England and Wales - Cases v. Judgements v. Decisions

When referring to cases which have come before a CoA judge, and for the purposes of listing these in a judges article (e.g. Mary Arden (judge)), what is the most appropriate title? Thus far I have come across:

  • Judgements
  • Cases
  • Decided cases
  • Decisions

I'm minded to implement and standardise this heading across all at Category:Lords Justices of Appeal, and thought I'd check in here to get a view ... my uninformed preference is Judgements, fwiw. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"Judgments", not "judgements", please. E.g. in this recent CA decision (I just picked a recent one from BAILII and by coincidence Arden LJ was part of the court, but didn't give a separate judgment) the word "judgment" is used 37 times, the word "judgement" not at all. BencherliteTalk 10:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've amended all of the instances I'm guilty of, and some more besides. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity as to use of primary and reliable secondary sources in law articles

Is there previous consensus on these somewhere?

  • 1 A filed legal pleading or court transcript is a primary source as to what the party plead or said, and a judicial determination in a case is a primary source as to what that determination says.
  • 2 The same determination may contain a summary of the arguments and pleadings of each side, or summarizing other court actions. The judicial determination is therefore a reliable secondary source about the pleadings and arguments of each side, and about those other court actions.

This causes problems as in the following example I am encountering.

I used Mass. Supreme Court Justice Wilkins' determination in a somewhat newly classic case (Commonwealth v. Twitchell), as a very reliable secondary source to define “entrapment by estoppel” here. Justice Wilkins wrote, Although it has long been held that "ignorance of the law is no defense", there is substantial justification for treating as a defense the belief that conduct is not a violation of law when a defendant has reasonably relied on an official statement of the law, later determined to be wrong, contained in an official interpretation of the public official who is charged by law with the responsibility for the interpretation or enforcement of the law defining the offense... Federal courts have characterized an affirmative defense of this nature as "entrapment by estoppel".” Boldface is added for emphasis as to this being a secondary source, not as a primary source, as to what how those other (Federal) courts have defined this concept.

Now lacking a secondary source, I want to use the same source as a primary source supporting that "Justice Wilkins cited the Model Penal Code in the decision". This is a straightforward descriptive statement, so use as a source is OK under WP:PRIMARY. But both sentences using this as a source, one as a reliable secondary source, the other as a primary source, will go to the same footnote, which will not indicate it is being used as both a primary and secondary source.

Now, further, I want to sum up the entire Twitchell case, in a straightforward descriptive way, again being OK under WP:PRIMARY. This again will go to the same footnote. But I am now very far from the (very) reliable secondary source use above. There is no way to indicate this to a WP user, who just sees the same footnote being used as a source, but in widely varying ways, without indication that this is so. A WP user would have to read the entire Twitchell case to discover I had done this, which obviates the need for an encyclopedia entry about the terms and case. MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

MBUSHIstory, I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but MOS:LAW may provide some guidance on these issues, though it doesn't define "primary" and "secondary" sources per se. In general, WP:PRIMARY permits citations to primary sources (such as an oral argument transcript) for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Notecardforfree. I will carefully read MOS:LAW, and WP:PRIMARY. I also modified my comment above for anyone new coming to this section, in light of your comment re WP:RPOIMARY. (I am not sure if I should restate my entire modified initial comment below your comment, or modify it above your comment, so other editors don't waste time reading corrected errors I made in my initial statement.) MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

to-do list ?

The main project page refers to a to-do list. Where can I find it? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me

It refers to it (the string "This list is transcluded from the to do page, to edit, click here"), and by transclusion includes it as part of the front page; in short, it's a very short list found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Advice / policy on jurisdiction of articles

Sometimes it can be a little confusing which jurisdiction is being referred to in articles. Also sometimes you can seem to get some duplication of material. For example see Tort and compare it to English tort law, Tort seems to mostly deal with English law without stating as much. Similarly Breach of contract seems to be largely based in US Law. What s the best practice here, should every page be turned into a comparative law introduction with sections for different jurisdictions or links to separate pages. Should I go on a binge of clearly defining which jurisdiction pages apply to and hiving off sections applicable to one country into their own sections or articles? (Talpedia (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC))

Yes, mainly. It'll be useful if we have articles on the general concepts associated with areas of law; sections or discrete articles on country-specific law; and bonus points for sections on the differences between jurisdictions. And where general articles are biased to a specific jurisdiction and in the absence of a quick fix, the reader should be left understanding that the description relates to the jurisdiction. I hope you have some time on your hands to fix all of this; I suspect it's a rather large task. I'm afraid I don't know my way around law articles for be able to point at anything that might serve as an exemplar, but a hunt through GAs and FAs might be useful. Good luck ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated State aid for DYK, nomination here. But reviewers have been unsure about some of the more technical legal aspects of it. Would it be possible for someone here (preferably with a background in EU law) to be able to give it a review? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It is the case that the litigant Kable, of Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), has been editing that article over a long time period. I'd be obliged if the article could be reviewed by someone competent and uninvolved. Note that I have deleted an entire section - the Aftermath Kable 2 section, which you can read in this version. I'd be obliged if someone could advise whether my deletion was appropriate. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

How to title Fisa cases?

Is there a suggested style for titling and describing Fisa cases like this? "Motion of the American Civil Liberties Union for the Release of Court Records, October 19, 2016, United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The motion makes it very clear that in its view the case is captioned "In re Opinions and Orders of This Court Containing Novel or Significant Interpretations of Law," so in the absence of other information, that's probably what the case should be referred to as. But that's not very unambiguous and is likely subject to duplication, so at the very least it should probably get a year. And maybe the docket number ("Misc 16-01"). I suppose how to refer to the title of the case in the Wikipedia article may have a different answer from how the Wikipedia article should itself be titled...jhawkinson (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I created In re Opinions and Orders of This Court Containing Novel or Significant Interpretations of Law and moved the article to that title, redirecting the former title to it. The ACLU website lists the article as "aclu_motion_for_release_of_court_records", so I also created a redirect from ACLU motion for release of court records, and also redirected In re Opinions and Orders of This Court Containing Novel or Significant Interpretations of Law (FISA). MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

AfD requests input from this project

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bednash v Hearsey. —swpbT 16:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Model Penal Code as secondary source?

Is the ALI Model Penal Code a reliable secondary source on the crimes it defines? If not, given the variation from state to state and country to country, how do we pick and choose among the various RS definitions for the first "defining" sentence of the lead? MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Law review articles and legal treatises, which are both secondary sources. I would suggest Wayne LaFave's Substantive Criminal Law, which any academic law library will have, and any law student will have via Westlaw. And to be clear, MPC is not a secondary source in Wikipedia terms, though in the terms lawyers use it might be called one (but probably not properly). Same for any other uniform codes that are designed to be adopted as statutes by jurisdictions. Additionally, MPC would absolutely be inappropriate as a source defining criminal law in general terms outside the US. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Mendaliv's comments. For general definitions, Wharton's treatise on criminal law may also prove useful. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Please Fix Bad Due Process Article

There is this bonkers article out there that really needs to be fixed by someone with a better concept of how Wikipedia works than I have. This is like a law article written by a sociology major. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_burden_standard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.168.254 (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOVN Discussion Notice

There is currently discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard concerning an article that may be of interest to members of this project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a guide for students in higher education who edit political science articles for class

Hi everyone! The Wiki Education Foundation is creating a guide to help political science students in US and Canadian universities and colleges. I'd love to gather any feedback this community is willing to offer toward this project. You can find the draft here: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Political science. We're hoping to get these out to students next term, so feedback by November 23 would be appreciated. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion in case textbooks to establish WP:N

Wikipedia is badly lacking in articles about legal concepts and cases that are widely known because they are chapters or subchapters in widely used and venerable basic, first-year law case textbooks (e.g., those case textbooks used for many years at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.). There is a potential to have to reargue WP:notability for each article started from such a case textbook. Deletion, or not, for WP:N based on inclusion in these textbooks depends on whether or not the same editors participate in these deletion discussions. The fact that the authors of such textbooks included these cases in itself is an objective criterion for notability. No one would argue for deletion of a similar article from chapter or subchapters in a first year physics or chemistry textbook. Can we establish consensus that such cases satisfy WP:N as the default, simply by their selection to be chapters in such textbooks. Otherwise, editors interested only in editing content (like me), will not start articles at all, since there is no interest in arguing with another editor who automatically patrol and nominate articles for deletion, without any law background, and who did not even read the case or source textbook chapter. Presuming notability from a single (widely used) case textbook may result in a handful of non-notable cases getting on to Wikipedia, but in the vast majority of cases, and overall, it will result in improving Wikipedia by easily adding plain English articles on many notable cases. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly support inclusion in a law case textbook as evidence of the notability of a case or legal concept, particularly if the same case or concept is discussed in multiple competing textbooks. bd2412 T 18:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
User:BD2412's rationale appeals to me. Res ipsa loquitur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree that discussion of a case or concept in a legal textbook is sufficient to confer notability. However, I am of the opinion that any precedent-setting case is worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia (even if that precedent was later overruled or disfavored). I would say that 95 percent of the time, cases appear in textbooks because they established an important rule or principle (the other 5% of cases usually include unusual facts or an unusual interpretation/application of legal rules), so there is likely to be a fair degree of overlap between these two standards. In any event, I do think we should have some sort of established notability guideline for cases. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct article title?

Which article title of the act that amends and updates the Toxic Substances Control Act is favorable?

--Leyo 20:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Under section 1(a) of the Act, it appears that the official short title is "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act". So, as verbose and awkward as it may be, I would think that's the appropriate title for the article. Alkari (?), 16 November 2016, 04:10 UTC
Thanks.
The additional content from Chemical Safety Improvement Act should get merged to Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, then? --Leyo 13:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The statute says it may be cited in that fashion, but these sorts of honorary titles are not always used. The official short title should be mentioned in the lead, and a redirect created, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be the actual article title. What name do the reliable sources use for the statute? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Which type of sources are deemed reliable in this context? --Leyo 16:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Leyo, law reviews and law journals that comment on the statute are generally the best place to look. Bluebook generally uses the short title of statutes, rather than the long title, so I imagine that the short title will be used by most sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Google does not give any hits when including site:legalbluebook.com. I would be grateful, if someone else could answer the question for me. --Leyo 22:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Leyo: Bluebook is a citation manual, not a source. Notecardforfree was saying that Bluebook style is to use the short title, therefore reliable sources would follow Bluebook style and use the short title. As Notecardforfree said, reliable soruces would be law reviews and law journals. Google Scholar is a good place to look for mentions in such journals. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Leyo, after looking a little more closely at this, I have discovered that the title "Chemical Safety Improvement Act" was the old name of the bill when it was introduced in May 2013 (S. 1009) by Senator Lautenburg (see this link at "General Statement and Background"). After Senator Lautenburg passed away, it was re-named in his memory. The official short title of this act (which, as you noted, is actually just an amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act) is "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" and the article about the Act should be located at that title. The material that currently exists at Chemical Safety Improvement Act should be merged to Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act and a redirect should be left at the old title. I hope that answers your question, but let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers including the link. Based on them, I added {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}} to these articles. --Leyo 23:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Leyo: I went ahead and merged the articles. There is no dispute that the correct title is Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, and having two articles on the same subject created a WP:CONTENTFORK. I merged some of the content from Chemical Safety Improvement Act to Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What is case with judge's signature on death sentence "have a nice day :)"?

Does anyone recall the name of the case where the judge signed the defendant's death sentence with "have a nice day" then put a smiley face (or something like that)? MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I know that the judge told Ted Bundy something like, 'Best of luck to you, young man.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
MBUSHIstory So what case was it? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I found an article with a smiley face on the death date notice, by Judge Charles J. Hearn, but I vaguely recalled "have a nice day, which is more than just a smiley face. Maybe my memory is wrong. MBUSHIstory (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"SS" as abbreviation for "Secretary of State"

For example at R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, the infobox abbreviates the case name using "SS". Is this a commonly accepted abbreviation, specifically in the UK context? To a layman, "SS" means either "steam ship" or "Schutzstaffel". I don't think space is really so tight in infoboxes that we have to imply such bizarre connections. Hairy Dude (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Law/Archive 20 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Polygyny

Please provide comment at Talk:Polygyny#Map of polygyny w.r.t. Russia. (This project is being pinged because the topic-in-question is listed as a topic under this WikiProject's umbrella.) --Izno (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

US law vs UK/Commonwealth law

In the US, states have laws concerning "Deadly weapons". In the UK and Commonwealth nations, they have similar laws about "Offensive weapons". As far as I can tell, they cover almost exactly the same ground, though the precise limits vary. I think they should be merged. But which should I propose as the merge target? Is there a protocol or custom for which country's legal terms have priority? Felsic2 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ping @Leopheard:, because he created Offensive weapon and @Wnt:, because he contributed to Deadly weapon. Felsic2 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't claim any deep understanding of the topic - I just added a news article about someone throwing an alligator through a fast food delivery window because it was funny! But FWIW my opinion is that the two concepts should not be merged unless and until you come up with some source that says that they have some common derivation - otherwise they are just coincidental. I mean, the laws on deadly weapons vary widely and don't make a whole lot of sense, and from a quick look I'm thinking the same about offensive weapons, and so there's no obvious reason to think they will align more than by chance. Wnt (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I support the idea of merging; the subject matter is much the same; neither of the articles is very good right now. I'd be tempted to entitle the article Prohibited weapons and direct deadly, dangerous and offensive at Pw ... Pw is a generic sort of a term throughout much of many country's legislation. There's a very good article to be had with a bit of effort. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Is that a valid synonym for either? By and large, clubs, screwdrivers and alligators aren't prohibited. Wnt (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
It is. Your examples are prohibited weapons. They are not, for instance, prohibited tools, prohibited zoo specimins, etc. You can make exactly the same argument about deadly weapons as you have about prohibited weapons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm just here to ask about a suitable target - I'll start a proper merge discussion once one is decided upon.
I see Wnt's point about "prohibited weapon" - it's somewhat different from offensive/deadly weapon since it does not include ad hoc weapons that are included in the other terms. Prohibited weapons are perhaps more like "per se" offensive/deadly weapons - those that have ben designated in the statute. Felsic2 (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Is it? It's not obvious to me they are prohibited. They are weapons that one may have, by and large, without consequence, in related contexts, with exceptions. They only are prohibited in certain situations, as defined elsewhere, outside the definition of deadly weapons. "Prohibited" misleads. (Felsic2 says it better than me above.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anybody express a preference between US and UK terms for what may be the same legal concept. I guess I could pick one then make that part of the merge discussion. Thanks for the input. I'll ping you guys when I start it. Felsic2 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer review for Legalism (Chinese philosophy)

G'day, a peer review has been requested for the Legalism (Chinese philosophy) article. Interested parties are invited to take part at the review page, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Legalism (Chinese philosophy)/archive1. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing Women in Law articles

I've added a new task to the todo list diff, in the form of a list of 1520 women in law for which we have no biography. The list is generated from wikidata, and will update itself on a daily basis. It is part of the Women in Red initiative which seeks to remedy the distressing imbalance between biographies of men and women on wikipedia, where the current ratio is about 86/16. I hope members of this project will lend support to the initiative by adding biographies of women in law. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and in other news, I really don't understand either of the other two entries on the To Do list; someone who does might want to amend them ... I think the ideal is to compose a ToDo list as a series of verb statements telling users what needs doing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Many thanks for creating this list! Just out of curiosity, is there a way to keep track of articles that are created from this list? Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Not a very good way, sadly, Notecardforfree. I'm tracking another list, ODNB women, and I tend just to look at the history and diffs to find out what's been going on ... to that end, I've removed the first column of this table, as an index number tends to make diffs very long (i.e. remove a row: all index numbers below that row change). To date, it looks as if there'd been one removal (i.e. article created) and one addition (i.e. a new wikidata item with no wikipedia article). I suspect that Petscan or the Wikidata query interface might be used to provide progress reports, but I'm not clever enough to get either to do so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Thanks for posting. Just out of curiosity: who determined that these women are Notable? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
That determination has not yet been made for en.wiki, @Ottawahitech:. They represent all women who have records in wikidata with a 'legal' occuption property and no en.wiki article. There is a presumption that many will be notable, either because another language wikipedia has an article (which is indicative of, but not an imprimatur of, notability) or because someone has gone to the effort of sourcing them for wikidata. We can suppose that very many different people added wikidata records for many different reasons. Editors here still need to make a person by person determination. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

GAR for Alexandra Stan v. Marcel Prodan

Alexandra Stan v. Marcel Prodan, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Is someone gaming the system? How can this article possibly be a GA-rated article of WikiProject Law?:
  • It does not belong to any law-related categories
  • It start off like this: Alexandra Stan v. Marcel Prodan stands for a series of events that occurred as a result of an alleged violent incident...
WARNING I usually live in the wiki-slums of Stubs and Starts and know very little about the upper classes at GA . Ottawahitech (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
Ottawahitech, this was actually nominated for GA under the Music topic, but the GA reviewer was the one to add the Law WikiProject to the article's talk page as part of approving it as a GA with this edit, and to categorize it under the Law topic rather than the Music topic. I don't think the nominator is gaming the system, though I think the reviewer made a heck of a mistake approving it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about law is updated - Skysmith (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Skysmith: Just curious: why is this in your user space and not part of this wikiproject? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
As far as I remember, it was linked by category, but then one of the members removed it (thought now the category is back). So apparently it was not wanted - Skysmith (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Mossack Fonseca

The world's (temporarily?) best-known/most-notorious law firm, Mossack Fonseca, has had a lot of work done on it over the past few days, and yesterday had 100K+ page views. Would be curious to hear any feedback from this group. —Luis (talk)

@LuisVilla: Just an observation: Page views for the last 90 days average 384 views per day. Any connection to wp:Not News? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: interesting question. For comparison, that's on par or better than the top five global firms by revenue. —Luis (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
(Also, amusingly, if you back out a bit more, they're the only firm that got a huge bounce... the day after taxes. Will be interesting to see if the same thing happens in April.) —Luis (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

State of Vermont v. State of New Hampshire

I've created an article titled State of Vermont v. State of New Hampshire, about a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1933. It is stubby as it stands and so far I haven't yet created any links to it from other articles. It does not yet make clear why there was a lawsuit in the first place. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The decision makes reference to some attempts in the first two decades of the 20th century of New Hampshire towns to tax land and structures on the west bank of the Connecticut river. This would be around the same time that hydroelectric plants were built along the river (that is, around the same time there was something worth taxing). Perhaps that is what lead to the lawsuit. If Vermont's contention that Vermont's territory extended to the thread of the river had prevailed, they could have taxed about 1/2 of the dams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs)

One oddity about this case is that SCOTUS cited an act of Vermont's legislature passed in 1782, when Vermont was an unrecognized entity effectively in rebellion against New York, when the governor of New York was contemplating military force to overthrow Vermont's government. The degree and nature of retroactive recognition of acts of the entity that called itself the State of Vermont during its 14 years of unrecognized de-facto rule seems like an interesting question and I wonder to what extent it's been answered. When Vermont was admitted to the Union on March 4, 1791, its governor who had been sworn in in October 1790 before Vermont petitioned for admission to the Union simply continued his term of office, as did other officers of the state, and the 1786 Constitution of Vermont continued in force unaltered. Does that in itself imply a sort of retroactive full-faith-and-credit? The act of Congress admitting Vermont to the Union said that the entity that had petitioned the Congress for admission was "the State of Vermont". Might that imply some sort of retroactive recognition? Even though Kentucky was not admitted to the Union until well over a year after Vermont's admission, the act admitting Kentucky was passed two weeks before the act admitting Vermont, and it began by explicitly noting that the legislature of Virginia had consented to Kentucky's becoming a separate state. Negotiations in 1790 had resulted in New York's legislature consenting to what they still claimed was a part of New York becoming a separate state, and called it “the community now actually exercising independent jurisdiction, as ‘the State of Vermont’.” But the act of Congress admitting Vermont did not mention that act of New York's legislature.

Allen's 'Reason', at CFI's Library

It seems as if Congress was deliberately avoiding explicitly saying anything about things that people disagreed about.
And notice the title page of this book, saying it was printed in 1784 in the "State of Vermont" seven years before Vermont was admitted to the Union. That doesn't imply recognition from anyone outside of Vermont, but recently I was taken to task for thinking anything called "the State of Vermont" could have existed before 1791. That seems to be another instance of the error of thinking about history by means of concepts that didn't yet exist during the time you're talking about.

So what degree of retroactivity does the full faith and credit granted to Vermont have? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael Hardy, a partial answer regarding Vermont's status may be found in footnote 13 in this 2004 article from the American Journal of Legal History. See also the equal footing doctrine. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: I don't see how the equal-footing doctrine addresses any questions of retroactivity. Might it be that the fact that Vermont law still considers acts of the state of Vermont before March 4, 1791 to be valid logically entails retroactivity? But is there anything explicit on the question of retroactivity? The footnote says "A compromise required the consent of a state for any future separation of a new state 'hereafter formed.' This exempted Vermont, which was already considered to be 'formed.' " But the words "hereafter formed" do not appear in the Constitution. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Michael Hardy, the questions presented in your previous comments involve rather complex issues of constitutional law. I apologize for the brevity of my previous response and for any confusion it may have caused. Here are a few points that I hope will clarify things:
  • States are sovereign (or quasi-sovereign) political entities. (See Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416, 431 (1920)). Although its territory may have been claimed by other states, the Supreme Court recognized that the political entity known as "Vermont" existed before 1791, when it was formally admitted as a member of the union. (Vermont v. New Hampshire 289 U.S. 593, 596 (1933) ("Vermont was admitted to the Union as a sovereign independent state")). In other words, the Vermont that existed in 1782 was the same Vermont that existed in 1791, and it is the same Vermont that exists now. That's why the Supreme Court, in Vermont v. New Hampshire, looked at how Vermont defined its own boundaries in its 1782 legislation. I should note that Vermont's situation is not unique: other states existed as independent nations and others established "de facto" or "extra-legal" local governments before joining the union. (See this law review article at p. 319 for more examples).
  • I'm certainly not an expert in Vermont's history, but I presume that they kept the laws of the old Republic when they joined the Union in 1791. As a general principle, when new states join the Union, they can utilize whatever laws they like, as long as there are no conflicts with federal law. (See Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567 (1911) (holding that new states are "competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself."); note also that Congress has often imposed conditions on admission to the Union). To that extent, Vermont could give legal effect to laws that were passed by its legislature before 1791. (See State v. Elliot (1991), a Vermont Supreme Court decision that discussed the "continuum" between the pre-1791 and post-1791 Vermont).
  • As for your question about full faith and credit: To the extent that Vermont kept any pre-1791 laws, upon admission to the Union, other states would then have to give those laws full faith and credit. As for any pre-1791 laws that were repealed before statehood, I think the question of full faith and credit would be moot. However, see this famous law review article about problems with giving full faith and credit to statutes and this more recent law review article, which explores a trend where the "Supreme Court has become far more willing to permit courts to ignore sister-state statutes" (at pp. 51-61). See also this article about the history and development of the full faith and credit clause.
  • I cited the equal footing doctrine because it presumes that states have equal status in the Union -- in other words, the federal government cannot limit the sovereignty of new states. (See Coyle, 221 U.S. at 566). Under this principle, Vermont had the same rights to manage its affairs (legislatively) as the other states.
I hope this is helpful. I would love to dive into these questions in further depth, but unfortunately it's a busy week for me. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: Thank you. The "continuum" question is to me the most interesting part. Vermont's 1777 Constitution was superseded by its 1786 Constitution, which continued in effect when Vermont was admitted to the Union. And Thomas Chittenden was sworn in to a one-year term as governor of the state of Vermont in October 1790, succeeding Moses Robinson, and that term simply continued when the state was admitted: no new government or new constitution or new laws came into effect at that time. (I think Wikipedia's list of governors of Vermont confuses matters here, by thinking about this in terms of concepts that developed later. It gives the impression that Chittenden's term from October 1790 to the date of admission was distinct from his term from the date of admission to October 1791.) It's also interesting that a federal court was examining the validity of the Wentworth grants as recently as 1991. What amount of "faith and credit" those should get has been contentious at least since 1764. (Benning Wentworth is the man who named the town of Bennington after himself.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Regulation by regulated region

So I just created Category:Regulation by regulated region - what do you think of it? I got a few questions regarding that category:

  1. Should it be moved over to Category:Regulations by regulated region (plural but more specified to specific regulations opposed to regulation in general)?
  2. Where to draw the line between article that belong to that category (it subcategories) and those that instead belong into other categories of law? And does it make sense to have that category when there already are categories for law by regions? If not would it be enough to modify this category / specify it better? Note: it was mainly intended for regulations of technologies for which the term or category "regulation" is way more appropriate than simply "law".

Also could you please help with that category? I won't populate it much - most if its entries are intended to be examples of what should probably belong into the category.

--Fixuture (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Marsy's Law request

Hello, I have posted another edit request on the Talk page for Marsy's Law. I'm asking for a couple small updates to the article that show there are now Marsy's Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. I have a financial conflict of interest (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) so I am aware I should not edit the article. Can someone look at my request and add this new detail to the article? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problems using WestLaw? --Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board--

The article Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board appears to violate copyright. I didn't want to go so far to have the page blanked by using {{subst:copyvio}} and to file a formal objection, but I'm still considering and welcome someone else to do so if necessary.

It looks to me like the text for the Holding portion (and likely some of the rest of it) was lifted from WestLaw. My guess is the editor probably didn't realize that copying from WestLaw would be a problem.

This also bring a question. Are citations like this acceptable in our law articles?

The President could not “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” within meaning of Article II if he could not oversee faithfulness of officers who executed them. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, § 1, cl. 1

I don't have access to WestLaw (and neither will most readers), so I believe that using a WestLaw (or LexisNexis) citation should be avoided. However, U.S.C.A. or U.S.C.S. could be found in a law library. So I am not sure if it generally acceptable or not.

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Child marriage and Teen marriage articles

Opinions are needed on Talk:Child marriage/Archive 1#Recent changes and Talk:Teen marriage#Recent image addition. The first discussion concerns changes made to the article's terminology, the use of images and whether or not to merge the article. And the second discussion concerns whether or not the lead image is appropriate for the article. Permalinks here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

J.A. Roffee

Hello. I happened to notice these edits by User:Adriennepjones citing several papers by J.A. Roffee in about two dozen articles, mostly related to law and sex or sexuality. I don't know Roffee, but this is not my field. It might be worthwhile to confirm that the references are appropriate and not undue promotion. I also pointed Adriennepjones to guidance at WP:REFSPAM. Cnilep (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

IMDb v. Harris

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I'm wondering if it's worth having an article on IMDb v. Harris (probably IMDb v. Becerra, now), currently taking place in N.D. Cal. I'm putting out a feeler here before undertaking it.

In the aftermath of Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc., where an actress sued IMDb for publishing her true age and lost, California enacted A.B. 1687, making such activity by IMDb illegal in California. IMDb promptly sued that such a law violated its First Amendment rights and in any event was preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The suit has gotten some significant news coverage (see, e.g., [1] (Findlaw); [2], [3] (Courthouse News); [4] (Hollywood Reporter); [5] (Techdirt); [6] (Electronic Frontier Foundation); and [7] (National Law Review), among others); but I'm not entirely certain that it's crossed over the line from WP:NOTNEWS into Wikipedia notability. Any thoughts?

I suppose we can continue to grow the "Reaction and aftermath" section of the Hoang article; but it's also possible to stray into WP:COATRACK territory if a whole lot of detail on the second case is added. It's really a separate case. TJRC (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Is this professor sufficiently notable in the field of Public Procurement Law (or for any other reason) to keep the article:

Comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Dekel

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed partnership between Wikimedia and U.S. Federal Register

As part of the Inspire campaign that Wikimedia is currently running, I've proposed a partnership between Wikimedia and the U.S. Federal Register to help improve content relating to the U.S. Federal Government. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my proposal: Partner with the U.S. Federal Register to help improve U.S. Government content. Thank you. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

FYI. Discussion going on about deleting this article:

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Criminal Justice Act 1991 - article is utterly incomprehensible

The article Criminal Justice Act 1991 is utterly incomprehensible. I do not mean the incomprehensibility to the layman of an article written by a lawyer for other lawyers, but the incomprehensibility of an article which looks like someone pulled words and phrases out of a hat and called the result an article. It is astonishingly incomprehensible. Please could someone have a bash at turning it into something that makes some kind of sense? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk)

@DuncanHill: it couldn't be saved - so I've just completely cut it. GiantSnowman 15:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking of doing the same, but didn't want to deny others the opportunity of being mind-boggled! DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Articles these articles worth saving?

Are articles like the below list worth saving? I am thinking of submitting a bunch of them to WP:AfD.

I got them from List of privacy injunction cases in English law

Some of them like this have plenty of strong WP:RS and should certainly stay if the WP:RS is on-point:

If the above are ultimately going to go to WP:AfD, should they still be listed in the table of List of privacy injunction cases in English law? I'm on the fence on that one: I believe the standard for inclusion in the table is much lower than WP:GNG for having a standalone article. (I don't know policy that says that, but it seems like common sense.) However, the WP:RS seems weak enough, I'm not sure we can even justify them in the table. (Pinging @DanielJCooper: who has created some and maintained others.) --David Tornheim (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

** The above two articles have already gone to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WER_v_REW. Submitted by Only in death. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am too busy with work to devote much time to Wikipedia these days. Improving Wikipedia’s coverage relating to anonymised privacy injunctions would take time and effort and would require expertise on the part of someone. Nobody else is interested. It is also a problem I've encountered adding content relating to uk housing law. Such a niche topic no other Wikipedia editor is interested. It is much easier to delete. I've just littered the place with stubs and wikipedia is less generous with stubs than it was a decade ago. DanielJCooper (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
@DanielJCooper: Thanks for commenting and sorry to ping you all over the place--preferred to err on the side of notice. It does look like an interesting area of law. The stubs would be okay if we could find more WP:RS, but I put some effort using Google into the first one I looked at ZXC v BNM and didn't see much, but after substantial work found this. And some of the sources you used like such as 5RB, I really don't know if they are respected in the field or not. If you can give evidence that this is a reliable source (or that some of the others you used are), that would help give us the WP:GNG to keep the articles. (I do think keeping the list is is not going to be as big a problem.)
Do you have other sources in print or that don't come up in Google that identify the stubs as being of great significance? I noticed almost everything comes back to this one article, but I really don't think that is enough. If you have suggestions so that we don't needlessly delete articles that could pass WP:GNG, I am all for keeping them.
Also, who is the intended audience for the stubs if they became real articles? If it is a very niche area as you say that few Wikipedia editors are interested in, would on-line readers be any more interested? Are the details of such a niche topic appropriate and notable enough for a Wikipedia general audience to be able to digest? Let's be honest, how many attorneys, law students or paralegals use Wikipedia to start their legal research? And let's hope consumers are not using Wikipedia for legal advice. I think for a niche area where the best WP:RS is in the law library or private database like LexisNexis or WestLaw, people who not attorneys, paralegals or other experts in that niche area are going to have a very difficult time filling in the stubs without access to the best materials. Do you agree? But if an expert does come in and feels motivated to put in the WP:RS, it will be great stuff I imagine. Thoughts?
P.S. I am taking a real estate class (U.S.), so I might be interested in helping on housing law articles that are not too focused on U.K. Almost every article I looked at had a dirth of sources--even on extremely notable legal concepts. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Duress in American Law -- needs work

I tried reading the article Duress in American law and was left more confused from the lede than before I started reading it. The article is really a mess in my opinion. I opened this talk page section: Talk:Duress_in_American_law#Needs_work. Any J.D.'s or law student willing to take a look and offer ideas for improvement? --David Tornheim (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, many of our broad-concept legal articles need work. It is going to take time and patience, but I am hopeful that we are making progress. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Schnapper v. Foley

I'm surprised we don't have an article for Schnapper v. Foley, especially considering its relevance to the Wikimedia projects. It's one of the few redlinks under List of copyright case law#United States. Anyone want to take a stab at it? Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Mistake contract law: mutual mistake v. common mistake

In this article on Mistake (contract law) we have a Mutual Mistake section -and- a Common Mistake section. Aren't these the same thing? Please comment here:

Talk:Mistake_(contract_law)#Mutual_Mistake_v._Common_Mistake

--David Tornheim (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines for naming articles related to legal cases and trials? More specifically, I am wondering if Trial of Clay Shaw should be renamed State of Louisiana versus Clay L. Shaw [8] or (per what frequently appears in Category:Trials in the United States and Category:20th century American trials) a shortened version like Louisiana v. Clay Shaw, Louisiana v. Shaw, State v. Clay Shaw, or State v. Shaw. The JFK assassination articles also have a related article, Rubenstein v. State. Thanks! - Location (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Location, we generally choose titles for articles about legal cases by following the conventions of the jurisdiction that decided the case. See MOS:LAW, which states: "Articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Post script: The trial transcripts (which I found by following a link from the Wikipedia article) call the case "State of Louisiana v. Clay Shaw." For the Wikipedia article about the case, I suggest Louisiana v. Shaw as the title. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for the feedback! -Location (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject Law participants may be particularly interested in the following categories: Category:Cannabis law, Category:Cannabis law reform, and Category:Cannabis law reform organizations.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer (Talk) 18:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Or should I call it pseudolaw? :)

At Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 2#Internet meme section I discuss a situation where there are a huge number of internet sources (none of them reliable, most of them very heavily read) that make a false claim about the law. In this case those false claims are most likely the cause of 90-99% of the visitors to the page. Alas, the sources are unreliable (if they were reliable they wouldn't be telling fibs about what the laws says) and very few other sources have covered the topic (these sites put out dozens of batshit crazy articles every day and nobody has the time or inclination to attempt to refute such a flood of bullshit). So what do we do? How do we properly answer the main question that most visitors to the page have? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't directly cite nonsense like sovereign citizen claims. If and only if reliable secondary sources discuss/describe/debunk such claims, we can discuss them (citing the reliable secondary sources) to the extent they are relevant/appropriate so long as we make clear their incorrect/fringe nature. If such secondary sources don't exist, we don't discuss the issue. Neutralitytalk 05:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nolo publishing blacklisted?

FYI. It appears that Nolo.com has been blacklisted as "WP:refspam". See [9]. There is post at t he reliable sources noticeboard about it here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nolo.com. Please weigh in. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I get the impression that their editorial / moderation policies are not enough to guarantee that information carried by them is reliable or otherwise non-advertorial. Is that a fair summary? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sasuke Sarutobi: Is your impression based on looking at their Nolo's materials or third parties reviews of their content, or assertions made by editors--editors who may not have any familiarity with Nolo's work? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Sorry, that's my impression of the reason for the blacklisting. I'm honestly not familiar enough with the site to say whether that is true or not. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • David Tornheim, it looks like I'm too late to join the conversation about Nolo; the discussion was closed by the time I saw it. In any event, although Nolo may be a good starting point for legal research, I think it's generally best practice to cite directly to treatises, law reviews, and cases when possible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Notecardforfree I agree those sources are better, especially for complex subjects. I would rather have one of those than nothing, which is often the case. And they do have the advantage that they are available when most of our secondary sources require a trip to the law library or are behind a pay wall.
It bothers me that now we can't even use a Nolo source in any article or on the talk page because of the blacklist. For example, I wanted to point to the article from Nolo on this google search (3rd item that comes up for me) at the discussion here: Talk:Plummer_v._State#Internet_meme_section, but I could not. Any thoughts on this? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
David Tornheim, I don't know enough about Nolo's vetting process for articles to make an informed judgment about its reliability per se. However, I have no doubt that many well-respected attorneys contribute to the site, many of whom may very well be experts on the subject of the post/article. I don't think we should categorically exclude the opinions of established experts. One option would be to request de-listing from the blacklist at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Notecardforfree Thanks! I asked about where to question it at WP:RS/N and I got no response on that. I will file that soon and let you know when I have done that. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Agency Law

We have two nearly identical articles:

I'm not sure exactly what the scope of the first article is supposed to be. The second I believe only applies to the U.K. (and I assume not Australia, New Zealand or Canada). However the first article has many of the same cases as the second, yet it also has citations to Restatement of Agency, which is American law.

I don't know enough about the difference of the various notion of agency internationally to know what needs to be done to the first article... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

David Tornheim, as far as I can tell, the first article is about the legal concept known as "agency," which is broadly applicable to a variety of different jurisdictions, while the second article discusses the concept within English law. I think the first article could certainly use some copy editing and more citations to non-English sources, but I don't think either of the articles should be moved or deleted. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
David Tornheim: sorry to "me-too" so late on, but I'd not only agree with the above, but also suggest that it may be worth subsectioning some of Agency in English law into Law of agency (with a {{main}} hatnote to the former article), which would also:
  1. Give scope for the Law of agency article to perhaps be expanded with similar content for other jurisidictions, and;
  2. More immediately, allow removal of the material that you mention in Agency in English law as irrelevant to the jurisdiction, or else not contributing so well to the article.
I would do so myself, but I'm afraid that I don't feel I know the topic well enough to judiciously edit it (if you'll pardon the pun). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sasuke Sarutobi: Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like neither of us feel comfortable making the changes we know the article(s) need. I haven't looked at either article since then, but since I am studying agency law, I might have another look at and try to make more changes based on the feedback. Also, thanks Notecardforfree for your response too. Did either of you see my post about Nolo Press below being blacklisted as a "blog", "predatory journal" and WP:refspam? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: No problem, thank you. I can make some structural changes to the articles, certainly, especially to reflect Agency in English law essentially being a geographically-specialised "sub-article" of Law of agency, as it were, as well as to remove any repetition that seems too redundant to have on both articles. I may still need to ask you to review any changes I make to ensure that the information is valid, and perhaps expand as you feel is appropriate.
And I did see your post - I get the impression that their editorial / moderation policies are not enough to guarantee that information carried by them is reliable or otherwise non-advertorial. Is that a fair summary? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sasuke Sarutobi: Thanks. I will be happy to review your changes.
Re: Nolo.com: I am responding in the Nolo.com selection and will copy your response there--hope that's okay. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
David Tornheim, it looks like I'm too late to join the conversation about Nolo; the discussion was closed by the time I saw it. In any event, although Nolo may be a good starting point for legal research, I think it's generally best practice to cite directly to treatises, law reviews, and cases when possible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Notecardforfree I'm doing the same as I did for the previous poster and copying to other section. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: That's fine, thank you. I've replied there now. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've started tidying up Law of agency, beginning by removing the UK cases that didn't add any commentary (I've left them in Agency in English law for now). I would say that I have a couple of issues with the article names, though:

  • "Law of agency" - this sounds to me like it should be relating to some sort of phenomenon (e.g. a physical or psychological law that falls under Law (principle)) rather than a legal concept. I don't know if the original Agency (law) (which is now a redirect after being moved from there back in 2010) would be more appropriate.
  • "Agency in English law" - I don't know naming conventions too well for this sort of thing in particular, but I'm unclear as to whether this is for English law, English and Welsh law, or UK law in general. If it is the latter, I'm thinking it may be worth moving to something like Agency in UK law.

With regards to the articles themselves - my main focus for now is Law of agency, as it should have a wider audience (and because I've had to demote it from B-class to C-class, so I want to get it back up to B). In basic terms, I reckon it should be more of a conceptual overview of agency (or at least its common features across jurisdictions), perhaps with some detail on where, how, and perhaps why different jurisdictions differ. Does this seem appropriate, or should it have a different scope? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Secretary of State for Employment v Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (No 2)

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Secretary of State for Employment v Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (No 2)? The article was created in 2011 and is not supported by any citations to reliable sources. i'm not sure if there's a particular notability guideline for articles like this, but as it currently stands it does not seem to pass WP:GNG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about a page

Hi! I'm helping with a student's class this semester and the user (AoJ.KM) had created a list page for the court cases of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. It was proposed for deletion as a general directory, but it does seem that there are other, similar pages like the one at List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union. This may only be able to have a list page because there are so many independently notable cases, but I also don't know if the BCCLA lacks an equivalent amount of pages because they simply haven't been written yet.

Can you give the student (and myself) some advice on this end? I thought that it could be a good compromise to turn the article into something that would be more of a general overview of the highlights rather than a list page, but if there's justification for a list page then that would be good as well. You can see the article at User:AoJ.KM/List of court cases involving the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, as I moved it to their userspace for the time being. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Shalor (Wiki Ed) If there there are quite a few cases that are notable, I would think the list would be notable and worthy of an article. We have quite few lists like this I believe. I would vote to keep if it goes to WP:AfD, unless someone can give me a reason I am wrong. I tend to be an inclusionist. There's probably a guideline somewhere about lists. Have you found it? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My knowledge of list pages isn't as firm as it would be with other pages, especially when it involves law. I figured that this would be something that would be better to bring up here and get some extra advice from, as I don't want to jeopardize the article's chance of survival once it's moved back because I didn't seek out help from people more familiar with law related matters. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Mistaken identity in English contract law

I did a major rewrite of Mistakes_in_English_law#Unilateral_mistake_to_identity. I would appreciate if anyone who feels comfortable and at least slightly familiar with this area of law could review it for mistakes and also look at my questions on the talk page: Talk:Mistakes_in_English_law.

I came to the page through theWP:AfD of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lewis_v_Averay. Lewis v Avery is an important case on the subject, although I could not decide if it was worthy of its own article or not. Feel free to comment at the WP:AfD as well.

It's an interesting area of law, that is apparently much easier to deal with here in the U.S. It didn't come up at all in the four week contract portion of my business law class to my recollection.

--David Tornheim (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Plummer v. State

There is an RfC at Plummer v. State, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. GregJackP Boomer! 04:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The WP:RfC is here: Talk:Plummer_v._State#Request_for_Comment_-_Internet_meme_section. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You know, if you had clicked on the wikilink that I provided, it would have taken you directly to the RfC. You should have seen that when you opened the editor to add it again, and before you made your snarky edit summary. GregJackP Boomer! 06:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend your attention to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Legal_Fringe as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Just curious on how many forums you and JYTDog are going to shop this at? GregJackP Boomer! 08:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Plummer v. State - 2nd Attempt

There is an RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal. GregJackP Boomer! 16:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I being detained? redirect

Wondering what other editors think of Am I being detained? which redirects to Sovereign citizen movement. It seems to me to be a very broad phrase which could mean a lot of different things. Thoughts? AusLondonder (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Industrial property

Hi all

I've used an open license publication Understanding Industrial Property from WIPO to create the article Industrial property. Would appreciate feedback very much.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:JANAE2290/Southeastern Community College v. Davis

Hi y'all--a student can do with a few pointers, in terms of formatting etc. to bring this into agreement with the Wikiproject's guidelines, and maybe some suggestions for content and terminology. Please don't write the article for her, or I'll have to give you points for the assignment, but then you have to pay tuition and all that. Thanks in advance, also on behalf of JANAE2290. Mrs. Dr. Aaij will thank you as well: apparently this was one of her favorite students a few years ago. :) Dr Aaij (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend that she look at the SCOTUS style guide. She'll need an infobox, and she needs more references. MOS:LAW would also help. She's got enough for a stub or start level article, but it can obviously be improved (as all articles can). It's a decent start. GregJackP Boomer! 02:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ran across this redlink, should it redirect anywhere? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney: I looked to see what referenced to administrative penalty, and it was only to this section and an article you were working on related to an administrative fine in Latvia, which comes up in red for Latvian wikipedia as well. I did some googling to see what comes up on English Wikipedia in this regard, and like many of our legal articles, our materials on administrative law are weak. If you are interested in Latvia, maybe create and fill out the section for it in that article first?
One thing I would like to note from working around our legal articles is that the differences between countries often make articles on specific areas of law confusing. If you compare the articles for Law of agency with Agency_in_English_law, notice that we have not article on agency law in the U.S., which seems to be the focus of Law of agency. That's why I am suggesting you focus on Latvia and/or E.U. if that is your interest, rather than try to cover a subject for all countries, when the way it is treated might vary substantially based on jurisdiction.
Back to your question about administrative penalty, we do have the also weak article Fine (penalty), which even has a section Fine_(penalty)#Process_of_the_administrative_fine dedicated to fines from traffic cameras in the Netherlands. Not ideal. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Thanks for your feedback! IANAL so I'll leave all such topic to y'all experts so far as what term goes where, but just wanted to bring the redlink to attention in case it resonated with anyone more familiar than I. Thanks! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Change in U.S. News & World Report Law School "Top 14" Rankings

(I'm cross-posting this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities.)

U.S. News & World Report is about to release (or has just released) their latest rankings of law schools. Some editors are focused on the change in the so-called "Top 14" which have collectively been stable for several years but have just changed with one institution dropping out and another institution rising to number 14. These same people are rushing to edit articles, particularly Law school rankings in the United States‎‎, to update this information. Unfortunately, much of the editing is quite sloppy as there are many extant resources that refer to the "Top 14" but the new edits are not only changing the list of the current top ranked institutions but they're also changing what these older resources supposedly say, making many confusing grammatical errors, etc. Can someone with more patience, interest, and available time please take a look at this and help ensure that this and other articles (e.g., Law school in the United States) don't become confusing, misleading messes? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Since no one here appears to be interested in cleaning up this article and keeping it organized as unregistered editors trash it, I'm also removing it (and this Talk page) from my watchlist. ElKevbo (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer review: Edict of Torda

All comments are highly appreciated here. Borsoka (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

gift / donor / donee

Articles at issue:

Background: I reorganized gift(law), primarily because the lead was too complicated, and because I wanted the redirect from causa mortis to go to the specific relevant area of the article instead of the top of gift (law).

Observation: We have donor and donation as full articles, but donee redirects to donation. I'm not very fond of having donee as a redirect donation, especially when that article is primarily about medical organ donations. It is also inconsistent to have donor with its own article, but donee not. We have a similar issue with agent, principal and law of agency [1] I think it is confusing to the reader, where the reader doesn't know which articles have the important information.

  1. ^ agent (law) redirecting to law of agency; while Principal (commercial law) basically duplicates everything in law of agency--I think I raised that before at #Agency Law above and those should be consolidated into law of agency)

Suggestion:

My suggestion is that we have a separate article for donee, even if it is little more than a sentence saying the donee receives the gift (law) from the donor.

(I don't think it is a problem that the bulk of the information is one article, just as I hope ultimately happens with law of agency and principal.)

Request for feedback: Are you okay with my suggestion?

--David Tornheim (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Article for Deletion

This article:

Broadcasters' rights under copyright law

is being subject to deletion here:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Broadcasters'_rights_under_copyright_law#Broadcasters.27_rights_under_copyright_law

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is currently a merge discussion going on with regard to Executive Order 11111. Opinions are welcome. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Archive 20/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Law.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Law, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_20&oldid=1045679956"