Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

Requested move at Talk:Brazilian investigation into Elon Musk#Requested move 1 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brazilian investigation into Elon Musk#Requested move 1 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Judicial supervision

Wikipedia is in the need of articles about the term "Judicial supervision". I created a layman's disambig page for this, to provide a minimal guidance, but experts must write decent articles at least for the two major very different meanings of the term. --Altenmann >talk 17:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that an article is needed at this point. I think the page should redirect to the Glossary of French criminal law entry instead of being a disambiguation page because there are no title matches and I don't think the entries there meet WP:DABRELATED or MOS:DABENTRY.

• Our articles on parole, probation, and judicial review do not contain the phrase "judicial supervision".
• Civil procedure in South Africa uses the term twice in the context of Jaftha v Schoeman and Standard Bank v Saunderson, neither of which use the phrase "judicial supervision".
• "judicial supervision of executive acts" links to Philip P. Barbour, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the 1800s. The article uses the phrase in an uncited paragraph: "he authored dissents in Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838) and Holmes v. Jennison (1840). These two dissents sought to diminish federal authority by supporting Jacksonian political aspirations and opposing restrictions to state sovereignty. Kendall dealt with judicial supervision of executive acts."
• Supreme Court of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic does state that "judicial supervision" was a function of the Court, but this is a start class article and there's no indication that that translation is referring to a proper legal term of art.

voorts (talk/contributions) 17:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you agree or disagree, it is a valid disambiguation page. I created it while searching google for the usage of the term. You cannot unilaterally judge its usage without community discussion. Yor edit was reverted. --Altenmann >talk 00:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I BLARed the page, which anyone can unilaterally do. The BLAR guideline also says that reverting it is appropriate. As is opening an AfD, which I have now done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I posted the issue here not with the purpose of someone butchering my input, but for an editors that have expertise in laws read the internets and write at least stubs for various meaning of the term, readily found online. These different meanings are clearly used in wikipedia and hence require explanation. I didn't want to do it myself because I lack qualifications. --Altenmann >talk 00:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: For those who would like to weigh in, there is currently a discussion at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Preterintention

I've recently accepted this draft through AfC, and I'd really appreciate it if some experienced wp:law editors could have a look at it, as it's been tagged for WP:OR concerns before. The creator is a newbie who's been having a really frustrating time with page patrol, AfCers, and so on. They certainly appear to be knowledgeable, committed, and acting in good faith, so I think some mentorship from someone in this wikiproject could be really valuable here. I removed the extant maintenance tags as I think they were a bit overzealously applied, but there are still some issues in here. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That draft was discussed above. I noted then that it appeared to have a lot of OR and was extremely unclear, and I still have those concerns. I agree that the author is operating in good faith, but I don't think this should have been approved at AfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Major issues include citing books without page numbers, the structure of the article, and passages that scream OR, like this:

The use of appropriate terminology is decidedly useful: in praeterintentional homicide the term "killing" is used and not that of "murder" (as in intentional homicide), in order to underline the agent's unwillingness to kill; as Puttmann points out: <<Triplicem intentionem in eo qui malum facinus sibi proposuit, distingui debere puto. One in eo consistet, ut VOLUERIT TOTUM, quo facinus perpetratum fuit, effectum (direct malice). Allera, ut facinus intra Certos sibi proposuerit fines, PRAEVIDERITQUE, majorem inde quam sibi proposuit effectum, facile sequi posse, neque tamen non etiam in hunc consenserit (indirect malice). Tertia ut voluerit quidem malum facinus, sed NON PRAEVIDERIT majorem inde quam voluil effectum oriri possess, qui tamen praeter Opinion inde oritur>>.

voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ack, sorry for missing the above thread. Yes, I'm concerned with sections like that but I think they can be fixed by simply removing them - normally, I would do this myself after making an accept like this, but I was hoping that someone with a law background could do that, rather than me, since I think they'll have better luck talking to the original author about it. Any chance you could give that a try? I'll do it myself if necessary, but I really don't think I'll be as effective. "Original research" isn't an easy concept to understand since we don't really use that phrase in the way most non-wikipedians expect it means. -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this can be fixed. I truly think this is a TNT or stubify situation. I would do so, but I still don't understand exactly what preterintention is. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try and pick out the biggest chunks, and if no one steps in in a few days or so, take it to AfD to see if we have consensus for TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight RfC

There's a discussion at Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#RfC_–_In_the_article_section_about_"Haifa",_should_the_following_paragraph_be_added? about whether specific prose attributed to Benny Morris should be added to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gender self-identification#Requested move 20 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gender self-identification#Requested move 20 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pornography laws by region#Requested move 15 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pornography laws by region#Requested move 15 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability for laws

As a follow-up to the question above, I’m wondering what the specific notability requirements for a law (as in a paragraph/article, not a full legal text) are. Is significant coverage in multiple RS sufficient? Because that would make most German and European and many subnational laws notable, where we have almost no articles? FortunateSons (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

GNG applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory#Requested move 30 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT rights by country or territory#Requested move 30 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Statutory rules of Northern Ireland#Requested move 29 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Statutory rules of Northern Ireland#Requested move 29 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Re Kevin – validity of marriage of transsexual#Requested move 15 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Re Kevin – validity of marriage of transsexual#Requested move 15 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

For the interested

An Indian court has said today "Accordingly, in the interim, this Court directs that the pages on Wikipedia pertaining to the single judge as well as discussion of the observations of division bench be taken down or deleted within 36 hours". It's (mainly) about Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Appalachian School of Law

Appalachian School of Law has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Berghuis v. Thompkins

Berghuis v. Thompkins has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

List of sentences

There is no life sentence or unlimited prison term in Brazil. Brazilian law forbids imprisonment to exceed 40 years (for example, see Pedro Rodrigues Filho). Accordingly, Francisco das Chagas should be included in section "False claims". Xadreq (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Request to Move at Gun show loophole

There is a discussion regarding moving the article Gun show loophole -> Private sale of firearms in the United States [1]. A related NPOVN discussion is here [2]. Springee (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for J. D. B. v. North Carolina

J. D. B. v. North Carolina has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status of a complaint filed in a civil case in the US

Can someone clarify whether a complaint document filed in a civil case in the US is copyrighted, and how one should deal with repeating or explaining the claims in a Wikipedia article. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The copyright is with the person who filed the complaint, I think. In my view, generally you should follow what secondary sources say about it, and use the document as a primary source document if needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Controlling law

Can we please merge this unreferenced stub, Controlling law, into Choice of law clause, or better yet, both of them into Choice of law? Thanks in advance. Feel free to ping/tag me. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a reasonable suggestion, Bearian, but I'm not sure about it. I had a look at what links to 'Controlling law', and the context of incoming links raises a concerns. Here's the text of all the current incoming mainspace links...

1. Patentable subject matter in the United States

   Similar judicial philosophy was adopted by Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman in Ariosa v. Sequenom, but this approach was firmly rejected by the SCOTUS in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. and it is not the controlling law in the USA.

2. Flood v. Kuhn

   After citing many precedents which had held industries which did not ship goods for sale across state lines to be interstate commerce, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that Federal Baseball and Toolson applied only to baseball and thus Hart controlled in the instant case (followed by a judicial quote)

3. United States v. Throckmorton

   A circuit split developed over which case was controlling during the late 1930s, but the Court declined to resolve it, although it has modified and clarified the rule in several decisions since then; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) has also limited Throckmorton's applicability.

4. Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon

   In 1953 it had held in Wilko v. Swan that three provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (or, the 1933 Act), which regulates the primary market in which securities issuers sell directly to buyers, were controlling, allowing investors to take their claims to court regardless of what contracts and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) said.

5. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd

   The plaintiff had sued under the Securities Act of 1933, under which any provision mandating that an investor waive their right to sue was prohibited. A 7–2 majority found the latter statute was controlling.

6. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.

   Federal law was controlling, overriding North Carolina law that held contracts such as the one between Mercury and the hospital not to be in interstate commerce and thus under the domain of state law, which in this case would have allowed the hospital to avoid arbitration.

7. Index of law articles — index article, not that interesting, whatever

Apologies in advance for my perhaps hazy understanding of American jurisprudence, but these uses seem quite different from what the article is about. In the first, second and third examples, the term is used to refer to which precedent is controlling (or, as jurists outside the US might say, which precedent is applicable or binding). In the fourth and fifth examples, the term is used in the context of the US Supreme Court deciding which of two federal statutes has priority. In the sixth example, it is used in the context of determining whether US federal law or state law had priority on a question before the court. None of the examples seem to use the term to refer to choice of law.

Currently, an ordinary reader with little or no legal education reading the above articles is likely to be misled if they were to click any of these links hoping to find out what exactly "controlling" or "controlling law" means in context. If we were to redirect it to either choice of law or choice of law clause, they'd still be misled. The preferable answer may be to change these links to better targets, or remove them entirely. (An aside: "controlling law" is a redlink on Wiktionary.) —Tom Morris (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I’m not going to merge it until I get feedback from at least two other users. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for R v R

R v R has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:European Union law#Requested move 16 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European Union law#Requested move 16 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)