Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

AfC submission

I'm not aware of the notability criteria for these. I appreciate your help. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Also this one. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hyatt Legal Plans

Dear legal experts: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable company, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

State of the art

The scope, name and usage of State of the art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:State of the art. This was an article prior to 2 February 2014, when it was overwritten by a disambiguation page previously found at State of the art (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Low-speed vehicle/Low-energy vehicle

See talk:Low-speed vehicle where an poorly formatted request to merge the legally-defined category "Low-speed vehicle" into the article "Low-energy vehicle" occurs. Someone will need to reformat the merge request, as it is currently using the wrong process (it is using the rename article process, which is not the correct procedure). -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Working with WikiProject Japan

I am learning about law system of Japan. I found out from editorials (even when somewhat unreliable in definition) that prosecution depends on highest conviction rate (99%) to win cases with circumstantial evidences, that defense may be inept, and that pro judges may be intimidated by prosecution. Probably I'm wrong because... there should be a lot of work to do. I would hope that you can either team with WP:WikiProject Japan or create "law in Japan" task force to edit articles related to law of Japan, like criminal justice system of Japan and lay judges in Japan. From what I've learned, in Japan, there is duty of confidentiality, but no attorney-client privilege or legal professional privilege. But I don't know which article to add such information. In fact, privilege in Japan is not well-covered, and rights of defendants may be denied or disparaged in Japan. Editorials can cover such topics better than "reliable" sources do. --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Short titles for UK Acts of Parliament

Do short titles of UK Acts of Parliament include the definite article? Please discuss at Talk:Crime and Disorder Act 1998#Short title and page name. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Fuck (film)

This is a note to let the main editors of Fuck (film) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 1, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 1, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Fuck is a 2005 American documentary film by director Steve Anderson, which argues that the word is key to discussions about freedom of speech and censorship. The film provides perspectives from art, linguistics, society and comedy. Linguist Reinhold Albert Aman, journalism analyst David Shaw, language professor Geoffrey Nunberg and Oxford English Dictionary editor Jesse Sheidlower explain the term's history and evolution. The film features the last interview of author Hunter S. Thompson before his suicide. It was first shown at the AFI Film Festival at ArcLight Hollywood; it has subsequently been released on DVD in America and in the UK and used as a resource on several university courses. The New York Times critic A. O. Scott called the film a battle between advocates of morality and supporters of freedom of expression, while other reviews criticized its length and repetitiveness. Law professor Christopher M. Fairman commented on the film's importance in his 2009 book on the same subject. The American Film Institute said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend." (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Above was posted to my user talk page, posting here as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Statute of limitations article

This article is a mess. The talk page is less visited while the article still needs cleanup. I found sources discussing statute of limitations in Japan. However, I couldn't add info about Japan in its current condition. --George Ho (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Isle of Man Companies Act 2006. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Defunct law firms of the United States. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not in Front of the Children

• Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth

I've recently gone ahead and created an article about the book, Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Help with suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

collegial court

collegial court is a red link. Do we have anything we can redirect it too, or do we need a new stub? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere except this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that the concept is notable. Should I stub it for your review, then, as I gather no redirect suggestion is forthcoming? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Legalese in Wiki

Wiki is a general encyclopedia and should avoid legalese language only understandable by trained lawyers. 91.125.105.194 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

UK Statutes at Large

I'm interested in sorting out the English&Welsh/GB/UK/Irish statutes, especially in creating pages for each law and linking to the text of the acts either in other archives (Internet Archive & Google Books) or on Wikisource (where Raithby's Statutes of the Realm can be transcribed).

I have sorted out the various volumes available on Google & Archive, and posted about them at: Eng/GB/UK to 1900: http://alsatia.org.uk/site/2014/02/resource-acts-of-parliament/ Irish Statutes pre-1800: http://alsatia.org.uk/site/2014/02/resource-statutes-of-ireland-to-1800/

Is anyone else interested in working on this? Technolalia (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Wesley Ross. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Help please with Jahi McMath case article

Jahi McMath case I thought that I would ask for some more knowledgeable help with this here since the article has now completed it's move from Jahi McMath to the "case" article. I'm trying to conform to WP,WP:NPOV, WP:BLP--(even though that itself is actually a sincere dispute with this article but was decided that since BLP covers "recently deceased" that it applies either way)...and dealing with how a WP article about a legal case should look. We could use some help please!24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Peculate

The usage of Peculate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Peculate (band) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Peculator

The usage of Peculator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk:Peculator -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 03/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James D. Diamond. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Input needed

Please see discussion of appropriate title at Talk:Delta (unreleased album), relating to a "statement of claim" in the Australian courts In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency

I've created a new article about the Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Glik v. Cunniffe

I've reviewed the above article and it seems that the nominator has retired. It only has a few issues left with it before I can pass it and I'd hate to fail it based on such small issues. Could anyone here look at it?--WillC 12:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Article title for legislations

Should we include "The" as part of article titles of legislation. As per my understanding, "The" should not be part of the article title of any legislation. Is there any specific MOS for legal/law related articles. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Amartyabag: That depends on whether "The" is included as part of the article's most common name, but most likely it won't be. Generally legislation on Wikipedia is titled using the Act's short title or some derivation of it (such as acronym or, most likely, dropping the "The"), at least for U.S. federal legislation.

As for MOS on law-related article, check out MOS:LAW. Hope this helps. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We should update the MOS to reflect such guidelines. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - it's surprising that the MOS is silent on legislation article titles. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed revisions to Cite act template

I've composed a couple of proposed revisions for {{Cite act}} based on my onetime use of the template. See Template talk:Cite act#Proposed revisions for the proposal. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Marjorie Heins article -- content dispute help

Hi. Another editor and I are having difficulty reaching consensus on content on the Marjorie Heins article. I'd really appreciate some third-party eyes on the content, and some other editors to weigh in on editor conduct issues (see Talk:Marjorie Heins). Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeking comments to improve Voting Rights Act of 1965

Greetings. I am looking for suggestions on how to improve the article Voting Rights Act of 1965, and I would be highly appreciative if folks from WikiProject Law could leave some comments about it on the peer review I requested at Wikipedia:Peer review/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1. The article was recently promoted to GA status, and it'd be fantastic if we could get it up to FA status. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Craig C. Martin

Dear law experts: This abandoned Afc submission was declined for lack of inline citations. I am willing to change the references into citations, but before doing this work, I would like an opinion as to whether this is a notable person. Should this be kept and improved, or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jennifer Lee Barringer

Dear law experts: Should this old abandoned Afc submission be kept an improved, or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Manual of Style (MOS) discussion on legislative citations

Members of the WikiProject are invited to join the discussion concerning how the Manual of Style should treat legislative citations at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Proposal regarding legislation. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

English common law

I redirected the 4 spellings/punctuations of English common law, from Common law and English law, to English law#Common law. Whether or not that's the correct form, all 4 spellings/punctuations should link to the same place. As I'm not a regular here at WikiProject Law, I thought I would put the question up for review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Adverse abandonment

I've created a several stubby new article titled adverse abandonment, concerning a legal process to force a railway company to forfeit real estate. If anyone can help improve it, please do. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Created new article = Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

• Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars

I've created a new article on the book, Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.

— Cirt (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 14/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Assisting Offender. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

some other notable works

Here's a list of some other notable books and works about the first amendment / free speech. There are lots more; this is just a start at a working list. --Lquilter (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perilous Times / Geoffrey Stone
• Make No Law / Anthony Lewis
• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate / Anthony Lewis
• Defending Pornography / Nadine Strossen
• Girls Lean Back Everywhere / Edward De Grazia
• Speaking Freely / Floyd Abrams
• Only Words / Catherine MacKinnon
• From the Palmer Raids to the Patriot Act / Chris Finan
• Fighting Faiths / Richard Polenberg
• Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, 1870-1920 / David Rabban
• Words That Wound / Mari Matsuda
• Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech / Cass Sunstein

law review articles

• "The First Amendment Is an Absolute" / Alexander Meiklejohn (Supreme Court Review, 1961)
• "Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment" / Thomas I. Emerson (Yale Law Journal, 1963)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties promoted to Featured Article

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties was promoted to Featured Article quality.

Thank you very much to all who helped with this successful quality improvement project related to freedom of speech and censorship,

— Cirt (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

New article = Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

• Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence

I've created a new article on the book, Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

Help with researching additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at Talk:Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence.

— Cirt (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP Law in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Law for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau article

Hello, everyone. Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Conviction, use of that term, and noting Vili Fualaau in the first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Capital felony as redirect?

Is there an article that Capital felony could be made a redirect to? RJFJR (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 24/03

User:Jessmchoi/sandbox. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

The usage and scope of Declaration of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:United States Declaration of Independence -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/03

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Geiger v. Kitzhaber. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Handling / Possessing stolen goods

The article Possession of stolen goods describes a (class of) crime, and includes sections describing laws in various jurisdictions, especially the US, Scotland, and Canada. Handling stolen goods describes laws in England and Wales, and includes a section on similar laws in the Republic of Ireland. The article has been tagged with {{Globalize}}. It would seem that 'Handling' should be merged into 'Possession', except that it is quite long. Attention from this project would be appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian law question: On what date did Crimea become legally Russian territory?

Could persons knowledgeable on Russian law kindly help answer the above question. One editor says it was from when the accession treaty was signed; another editor says it was from when the accession treaty was ratified. Input requested at Talk:Republic of Crimea (country)#On what date did Reunification with Russia occur?. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Legally according to whose law? Obviously, according to Ukrainian law, it hasn't happened. According to Crimean law and according to Russian law may have different answers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to see how I could have been clearer that mine was a question as to Russian law. I even captioned the heading "Russian law question". Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the press coverage, President Putin signed the law annexing Crimea to Russia on Friday, March 14, and the law took effect immediately. I haven't been able to locate an English copy of the law itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but I am rather a bit further along than that. Detailed discussion was at the place I linked. It includes a link to English text of Treaty. Sounds like you probably don't have much knowledge to share on this. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear

Any interested editors are kindly asked to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear. The article in question is (I think) about a WTO case. The sources cited however are primary and there is some question as to the notability of the case. Thanking you for your time and consideration -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 20/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Consumer Watchdog vs. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on FAC Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is ranked by WikiProject Law as an article of "Top-importance", is currently a Featured Article Candidate (FAC). Feedback on the article's candidacy would be greatly appreciated! Please post feedback on the candidacy page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1. Please note that FAC reviewers are not required to review or offer feedback on every aspect of an article. Thank you! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of works about Julian Assange for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of works about Julian Assange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works about Julian Assange until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. XOttawahitech (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

South Carolina State Supreme Court Justice Donald Beatty criticism of prosecutors and prosecutor backlash: where would this go?

• Balko, Radley. "Judge says prosecutors should follow the law. Prosecutors revolt." Washington Post. March 7, 2014.

Where would this go? Is there a place for info on prosecutorial misconduct? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Citing Commonwealth-style Amendment/Repeals clauses

In the Commonwealth, if an Act intends to amend or repeal multiple clauses of existing statute law, those amendment repeals are often not be included in the main text of the act. Instead, enabling clauses will be inserted into the text to list the repeals / amendments in the schedule(s). Using House of Lords Act 1999 (1999 c. 34, UK) as example:

4 Amendments and repeals.

(1)The enactments mentioned in Schedule 1 are amended as specified there.

(2)The enactments mentioned in Schedule 2 are repealed to the extent specified there.

Where Schedule 1 contains 3 amendments in 2 Acts and Schedule 2 contains 2 amendment in 1 Act.

If I want to cite for a single amendment/repeal legislated this way, should I cite both the enabling clause and the appropriate position in the Schedule(s), or just the latter? Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I say cite both: better safe than sorry IMO. What does the UK Statute Law DB do for its notes in the amended act? Int21h (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Using annotations on the UKSLDB for Peerage Act 1963--one of the acts amended by HLA 1999--as example:

F1 Words in s. 1(2) substituted (11.11.1999) by 1999 c. 34, ss. 4(1), 5(1), Sch. 1 para. 1

F2S. 1(3)(b) and the word “and” immediately preceding repealed (11.11.1999) by 1999 c. 34, ss. 4(2), 5(1), Sch. 2

(Note: 4(1) and 4(2) are already quoted above. 5(1) is a clause on commencement date.)--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Law clerks of the US

Hi All, Some wikipedians and myself are working on listings of law clerks of the US, a main table has been created which is large and a bit slow but comprehensive, unfortunately this information is duplicated. So where an editor updates or adds information is not as clear as it could be, so we have some discrepancies between the various listings. I would like some guidance as to the best approach going forward. The three potential approaches currently under discussion are;

1. Delete the sub pages i.e. List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Chief Justice) and only keep List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (easiest fix, not sure if it meets requirements though, the main table only needs some reformatting for optimisation).
2. List the law clerks on a table on each and every justices article and then transclude those pages onto the main page, deleting the sub pages (this is a long fix, but maybe the best long term approach).
3. Transclude the sub pages onto the large list (a shorter fix, not sure it has the required value though).

There has been some discussion on this on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States going back to 2006, and the table(s) themselves have been reformatted etc to try to resolve some of the discussed issues. I can certainly achieve any of the above approaches, however, without some guidance from the Law Portal as to the best way forward that meets all requirements as currently foreseen and a general consensus has been agreed, before acting on any of these so that we do not have to re-visit this. I also am totally open to a new or novel approach if you care to offer it. I am happy to do most of the leg work, reformatting, transcluding etc and can pretty much do most anything along these lines so do not be afraid to offer something radical. Kind regards. The Original Filfi (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure they should all be redlinked, or externally-linked for that matter. Red-linking seems wrong, because they're not all going to be notable -- especially the ones who have clerked just in the past ten years or so. And externally linking this large list of people seems, frankly, unduly promotional. (I'll post this on the talk page.) --Lquilter (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lquilter, thank for the reply, I agree, however red and external linking is not really the issue I am trying to get a consensus on here, it is more the approach and in what location for the use of potential readers or researchers of these articles/subject to place the base data, (before extracting, if necessary to the main article). I suppose the basis I am looking at is; Do we need an article per seat? Do we need a listing on each justices page? Should we just reformat the main page and delete the sub pages? or Is there another solution or place to house this information naturally? I am trying to ensure we have one place to update so that we can capture all and every editors contributions and keep the information as accurate as possible across the list or listings. The notability, red links and external links I will deal with once this has been agreed.
Kind regards.
The Original Filfi (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014

Is anyone involved in Wikiproject Law going to Wikimania 2014? And if so, are you interested in meeting up and discussing the project? Technolalia (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I intend to be there. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

U.S. internet censorship

ThePsychoExWife.com was shut down by a U.S. family court judge back in 2011. Would this warrant being mentioned on Internet censorship in the United States? 72.74.214.237 (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Pre-1963 UK laws--cite by Regnal year or AD?

In the middle of an attempt to improve Template:Cite legislation UK (IMO a useful, but underused citation template), I have noticed the UK Statute Law database started to put AD-based citations even for pre-1963 laws. For example, the Magna Carta is listed as "1297 c. 9 (Regnal. 25_Edw_1_cc_1_9_29)". While the URL of the legislation continues to be http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/1297/9/contents is a valid redirect.

Regnal year citations is a major challenge to this template which causes attempts to parse rengal names at its sandbox, which may not even be adequate in some cases (Lord Steward Act 1554, 1_Mar_Sess_3 c. 4))

While of course WP should accept both types of citations, is it appropriate to ask editors to only AD years on templates like this?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you ask User:Wikid77 to write a lua module to work with regnal dates. I would offer but I am out of touch with this sort of thing. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

I'm not sure the citations by year and chapter on SLD are legally valid. Section 1 of the Acts of Parliament Numbering and Citation Act 1962 expressly does not apply to Acts passed before 1963. James500 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

More eyes needed - Are American judges always lawyers?

Please have your say at: Category_talk:American_judges#Are_American_judges_always_lawyers.3F. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are all Judges lawyers and where are they not? (Canada)

Where are all Judges lawyers and where are they not? Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canadian_law#Where_are_all_Judges_lawyers_and_where_are_they_not.3F. Thanks. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Eyes on Education_Program:University_of_Canterbury/International_Human_Rights_Law_(2014_S1) for a week or so please

The course at Education_Program:University_of_Canterbury/International_Human_Rights_Law_(2014_S1) is peaking right now, with lots of editors making edits and/or creating their articles. I'd encourage everyone to take a look at an article or two and give feedback / encouragement as appropriate. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Any interested editors are asked to comment on the proposed merger of Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear into Argentina–Indonesia relations. The subject is a WTO case and the proposed merger discussion can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Rational nexus test

We have no article on this. Does anyone want to write one? bd2412 T 02:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Judiciary of Mexico

It's a shame that this is still a red link. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Freehold

I would suggest that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC dictates that Freehold be renamed to Freehold (disambiguation) and Freehold (law) be renamed to Freehold. 68.165.77.199 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Law At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

New article: "Draconian constitution"

Hello I have recently established the article Draconian constitution and am going to need help in acquiring collaboration and expansion. Thank you for your consideration and your thought of contributing your expertise into the topic's field.

Adzuck (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Could some people please look at Notary

The article states that "A notary is a lawyer or person with legal training who is licensed by the state to perform acts in legal affairs, in particular witnessing signatures on documents." That is not true for most notaries public. Unless you call reading an instruction sheet or attending a one day course "legal training." The article mixes so many legal systems, that it's become misleading. Could someone or perhaps a group from various countries and US states, please spruce up that article. THANKS --99.11.162.138 (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is intended to describe the notaries throughout the world who do have legal training (including the U.S. state of Louisiana, the civil law notaries in Florida [which also has relatively untrained notaries public], and Puerto Rico). The relatively untrained notaries who serve in most of the US, and some provinces of Canada, are described in the article Notary public. I think the lead of the Notary article should explain this better.

Another complication is that while most US notaries public don't have to have any significant legal training, most US lawyers are also notaries public, so some fairly small fraction of US notaries have a great deal of legal training. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT legislation may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS articles needing some attention (I think)

I'm working on a CCI and see a few articles involving SCOTUS cases. I ran the copyright question for one Follett v. Town of McCormick by user:Newyorkbrad, because I wasn't sure whether the material coming from the Findlaw reference was original by Findlaw (which would be a problem) or simply material copied from the case (which should be public domain). While I can use his answer to help me with some of the others, I note some other concerns, and I am hoping there is someone interested in articles about Supreme Court cases who might want to do a little article improvement.

I realize wikiprojects often design their own standard formats for articles, but I think a general rule applying everywhere is that the lead is supposed to summarize material in the body. In each of these articles, I think this is not done, and in my opinion is not a trivial omission. The lead states the Supreme Court conclusion but the body typically does not, and further, I see nothing indicating the reasoning for the decision, which I would think should be a fairly important piece of information.

In at least one case, there is no reference, so some help in adding a reference would be appreciated.

Some of the cases are:

• Follett v. Town of McCormick
• Holmes v. United States
• Davis v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
• Simmons v. United States
• Saia v. New York
• Poulos v. New Hampshire
• Falbo v. United States
• Prince v. Massachusetts
• Dickinson v. United States

My guess is that the editor was using a cookie-cutter approach, not necessarily bad if the format is sufficiently robust, but many seem to be lacking important aspects.

My narrow concern is to make sure there are no copyright issues, (so if you see any, please ping me so I can address them) but I'm also hoping that some member of this Wikiproject will want to beef up some of these articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks pointing these out. I don't have much time this coming week, but I'll try to look at some of the articles for copyright concerns or plagiarism at some point. You may also wish to post this message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the other Wikiproject, I cross-posted there as well. Thanks in advance for anything you might do on these articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this CFR, USC, or what?

I'm citing this from 1976 (I think it's since been repealed) in an article. It claims to be the Code of Federal Regulations, but appears to be Title 23 of the United States Code. Which is it, and how do I cite it? 23 C.F.R. 661 (1976)? --NE2 07:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It says Code of Federal Regulations on its front cover, as well as the year it was published, 1983 (not 1976). And since the CFR is annually published, yes, I think that is reasonable. I think citing the regulation is probably also acceptable: 41 FR 52449 (Nov. 30, 1976). Int21h (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I was confused because Title 23 means the same thing in the CFR and USC. --NE2 09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oil Platforms case

Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) has been proposed to be renamed to Oil Platforms case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the discussion, see talk:Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of R v Brooks and five others

The article R v Brooks and five others has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As it is unclear whether anything has happened about this case in the last year and a half, it may have been kicked into the long grass, I suggest we ought to delete this.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@PatGallacher: It looks like R v Coulson, Brooks and others might be the most current and substantive article for this topic (I imagine the caption was amended as more people were added to the prosecution). If so, R v Brooks and five others should just be redirected there. postdlf (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Kleargear AFD deletion discussion notice

1. Kleargear
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination)

Discussion about whether or not to delete article for Kleargear, discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleargear (2nd nomination). — Cirt (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre-emption

FYI, there's a query at WT:CANADA about this. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Party in case included in casebook; ipso facto notable?

There is a discussion at AfD Parks West Mall (2nd) as to whether the fact that a mall is a named party in a case, which case was included in a law casebook, is indicia that the mall is notable. This may interest some of you.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The answer is "absolutely not." Adopting a rule of automatic notability would, among other things, imply the creation of tens of thousands of BLPs despite the absence of reliable information about many of the people we'd be writing about. (No opinion on the notability of this particular mall.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Link from "prescription" to what target?

In the article titled Custom (law) we find this:

Custom in law is the established pattern of behavior that can be objectively verified within a particular social setting. A claim can be carried out in defense of "what has always been done and accepted by law." Related is the idea of prescription; a right enjoyed through long custom rather than positive law.

For some reason someone made "prescription" link to "statute of limitations". I changed that. However, the article titled Prescription (law) merely links to Prescription, a disambiguation page. That page links to (among others) the article titled Prescription (sovereignty transfer), about a narrower concept: sovereignty over territory claimed by long custom. Is there an appropriate thing to link to at that point in the article titled Custom (law)? If not, should one be created? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion#Harder to file class actions about whether or not the article has appropriate reliable references for including this sentence at the end of the lead section: "By permitting contracts that exclude class action arbitration, the high court's decision will make it much harder for consumers to file class action lawsuits." Interested editors are encouraged to contribute their opinions there. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Template updates for new members of the Big Ten Conference

I am a bit confused by Rutgers' multiple campuses and need some advice at Talk:Big_Ten_Conference#Template_help regarding {{Big Ten Conference law school navbox}}.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

right-of-way

The usage of right-of-way and right of way is under discussion, see talk:Right of way (public throughway), where it is suggested that Right-of-way (transportation) also be merged into it, and the merged article be the primary topic. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Natural and legal rights RM

Opinions at Talk:Natural and legal rights#Requested move would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Garcia v. Google

I'm considering writing an article on Garcia v. Google, a Ninth Circuit copyright case that was decided in February 2014 and immediately became controversial among the IP bar. It's currently up for a rehearing, and there have been a number of amicus briefs submitted, all supporting a rehearing (and one assumes, reversal).

The case is related to the controversial film Innocence of Muslims, and at the moment is dealt with in a single paragraph in that article, 2014 court ruling on removal. In the case, Judge Kosinski held that, while not a copyright owner, actress Cindy Garcia had a (to me, vaguely delineated) "copyright interest" in her performance in the film, allowing her to issue, and requiring Google to comply with, a DMCA takedown order.

I realize this may be skating close to WP:NOTNEWS, but I think it falls on the notability side, supporting such an article. On the other hand, I don't want to take the trouble of writing it up if it will be immediately AFDed.

Thoughts? TJRC (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What kind of coverage has it received in legal sources? postdlf (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of these might give you an idea; this is just from a google search on "Garcia v. Google".... [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

I think this goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Of course, it's not far along enough to be cited much in other cases. I have no access to a good law review bank, but I suspect it's both too recent to have had any articles published about it; and still too much in flux for anyone to want to write on its significance, in case it gets reversed en banc. TJRC (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You can probably get something started that'd survive an AfD, but the law review articles are probably not going to come out until later in the fall semester. The legal newspapers, however, certainly have some coverage. Lexis Advance gives 42 hits on its "legal news" tab. Oh and according to Law360, it got denied en banc review back in March. I Shepardized the case as well: there are no law review articles on Lexis citing the case. On West, the only law review article is Christopher M. Newman, "'What Exactly Are You Implying?': The Elusive Nature of the Implied Copyright License", 32 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 501 (2014). The coverage in there appears to consist of about two paragraphs. There's nothing at all on Hein about this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The en banc review of the denial of the stay of the order against Google was denied on March 14 (that's the March 14 order on the 9th Circuit's high-profile case page); but the en banc review of the decision itself is still pending. As shown on that page amicus briefs on the rehearing were still coming in up to the April 14 deadline. The court's not yet issued its decision on rehearing. TJRC (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, right you are. Well let me know if you need sources, I'm happy to share reference material. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comments at Talk: Madeleine McCann

There are two requests for comments at Talk: Madeleine McCann. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Corfu Channel Case

(cross-posted from WT:WPIL): Hi all, I'm in the process of rewriting and expanding the article on the Corfu Channel Case, which was the International Court of Justice's first case. I was wondering if someone more versed than I would care to take a look, maybe make some recommendations or otherwise help bring it stylistically in line with other caselaw/international law articles. Expansion has gone well so far (according to the DYK checker up to about 3780 words from 125 words since the end of June), but I could use some outside input. Particularly the section on the case history feels like a mess. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a formal peer review for this article. Please see the peer review page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/US Copyright law about fashion design

This draft needs some more work. Please help! Bearian (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

FA review for Sonia Sotomayor

This page is currently at GA since 2009 which was well-written then but lacking a Supreme Court section to justify an FA nomination. Sotomayor now has 5 years experience on the Court and 3 new books on the Roberts Court have added new light to her full biography. During the past month a new Supreme Court section has been written for the article, and all 300 references in the article have been brought up to date as to link status. Other users have already started assisting with other refinements. Welcome to all comments and critiques either to the Sotomayor Talk page or my Talk page. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Concern about presence of US Attorney in Template:Infobox U.S. district court

I started a discussion in Template Talk:Infobox U.S. district court about the recent addition of US Attorneys to Template:Infobox U.S. district court. I just wanted to highlight it here. It's my intent to revert the change because a US Attorney is not part of, nor an attribute of, a federal district court. But I wanted to solicit discussion first. Please reply on the talk page. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Linton Corbin and Samuel Williston

Both need an image. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Police power"

The usage of pagename Police power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Police power (United States constitutional law) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Queen's Counsel - query

How are the subcategories of Category:Queen's Counsel supposed to be used? If, for example, someone was appointed QC in 1880 and lived until 1930, do we add them to both Category:Queen's Counsel 1801-1900 and Category:Queen's Counsel 1901-2000 or do we add them just to the category for the period in which they were initially appointed? Can this be clarified on the various subcat pages, please. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this project active? - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Land sale and Land sales redirecting to different articles

Just wondering if someone can please check that these 2 redirects heading in different directions makes sense. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also Landsale which perhaps should be moved to Land-sale coal or Land-sale collieries. Cf. Land-sale overage. Or perhaps Land sale should be a dab page with all of the relevant articles on it? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi,

Greetings from India, This is (an informal) request for coment at Talk:Legal_education#Applied_legal_education. Since I am not aware of legal education nuances from different countries and regions around the globe; about nomenclature and system about "Applied_legal_education" I suppose you can help us by providing apropriate info in improving Law related articles for related aspects .

I belive your inputs will be very valuable and waiting for you comment at Talk:Legal_education#Applied_legal_education

Thanking you and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured topic candidate

I have nominated a law-related topic for featured topic status here. Any constructive comments there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Manslaughter and Culpable homicide

Are manslaughter and culpable homicide close enough in meaning to allow for articles involving culpable homicide to be categorized together with articles concerning manslaughter? Please see the discussions at Talk:Oscar Pistorius#Cuplable homicide and Talk:Trial of Oscar Pistorius#Detailed verdict. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Manslaughter is generally understood as referring to reckless homicide in modern practice. Culpable homicide is closer to negligent homicide. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wanted - Editors with knowlege of Roman-Dutch law. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A beginner could use some guidance

Please see WP:Teahouse/Questions#Unifying language in an article where a new editor is asking for advice about terminology. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus Act

So is US law the default here? Don't see a Wikiproject US Law.
Anyhooo... Talk:Posse_Comitatus_Act#Legal_cases_and_recent_related_regulations I talk about an interesting new case and beefing up the article in general which is midway down my own "do list". So thought I'd mention it here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel

• No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel

I've started a new article on the book by Janice Dickinson — No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Feel free to help out with additional secondary sources, and/or chip in with collaborative discussion at Talk:No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law

Dear law experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable law journal, and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Texas abortion law

(Bringing this here because only one user commented on NPOVN.) In the pre-Roe v. Wade environment, is it more neutral to refer to Texas's "pro-life laws", or to "Texas's abortion ban"? (Abortion was illegal in Texas, including in cases of rape or incest, with an exception for cases where pregnancy threatened the woman's life.) Article: Norma McCorvey. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, while it seems the phrase "pro-life" existed prior to Roe (the OED has an attestation from 1960), it's a fairly politically charged term. See Anti-abortion movements#Terminology. I suggest a middle ground might exist in using the phrase "abortion law", "law governing abortion", or possibly "law prohibiting abortion". May seem like a small thing, but sometimes a minor rephrasing will calm things. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to use "ban", though? Is there some non-neutral meaning that I'm not aware of other than "law prohibiting"? I'm glad you agree that the use of a non-neutral political term to describe the law is inappropriate, but I'm not sure why the solution isn't just to go with the other, neutral option. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with either "ban" or "law prohibiting" (or "law governing", for that matter). I just suggest it because in my experience, sometimes disputes like these get settled by little tweaks like these. Being open to accept a slightly different phrasing at least gives you better credibility should the dispute need to be externally resolved. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly I have no problem with "law prohibiting" (although in context, "law governing" doesn't really provide enough information). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lie on file

I have created a stub at Lie on file. Some expert improvements would be welcome, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Admission to the Union

I have created a new article on admission of states to the United States. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments on sharia/Islamic law page

There is an RfC question open about "application of sharia" and what content to include to improve the article as a reference source? Comments and suggestions from Wikiproject Law project contributors will be very helpful and are invited to that page. You can find the RfC here. Thanks, RLoutfy (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal job openings at WMF

Hi, There are currently a couple of job openings in the WMF's Legal and Community Advocacy departments, that I thought might be of interest to someone here, or you might know someone to nudge. Hope that helps. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Lewanika and Others vs. Chiluba

There is a dearth of non-US cases, I just created one that is pertinent at the moment. I was wondering if someone can help on this? especially the infobox. JudgementLihaas (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Magna Carta

This article from the Observer points out that it will be the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta next year (15 June 2015) and suggests there will be various TV and radio programmes (and books etc) to coincide with the significant date. I note this article regularly gets 150,000+ page views per month and this is likely to increase. Would it be worth trying to get a collaboration going to get it to at least GA or even FA standard before the anniversary?— Rod ^talk 18:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Case infoboxes: should there be a parameter to link to text of decision?

I've just noticed that the infobox templates {{Infobox U.S. Courts of Appeals case}} and {{Infobox SCOTUS case}} do not include a parameter to specify a link where the actual case can be read. Should they?

I realize many cases put an entry in the external links section, but this is such an important thing, it seems worth having in the infoboxes. The SCOTUS case template links to oral arguments and dockets; but not the case itself, which strikes me as a much more important inclusion.

As a workaround, I just made this edit to add a link to a case where there wasn't an obvious link elsewhere (although I now see one of the refs is to the opinion text). TJRC (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with case citation?

I'm trying to clean up In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, since it's a bit of a mess - the original author exclusively used bare URL citations, one of which was this court document. I tried converting that to {{cite court}}, but it's not clear that that's an active template, nor does it seem to have the right fields for this document. Can anyone point me in the right direction for formatting this type of citation? Obviously any help with cleanup of the article would also be appreciated. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite court only works for published opinions, i.e. those that appear in a volume of a case reporter. When you're citing to an unpublished order of a court where you don't even have an electronic database ID (no LEXIS or Westlaw in other words), you need at minimum the caption (In re Garlock Sealing Tech., LLC), the case number (No. 10-31607), the court in a proper abbreviation (Bankr. W.D.N.C.) and the date of the order. We're missing the date of this order from this pdf., but put together it would look like this:

In re Garlock Sealing Tech., LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. [DATE]).

If you want to identify or distinguish it further (such as if there are a lot of orders in the case, or multiples for the same filing date), you can always add a parenthetical at the end, like In re Garlock Sealing Tech., LLC, No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. [DATE]) (Order Estimating Liability), or use your own descriptive in the parenthetical if the document title is unnecessarily wordy and a phrase like "order dismissing third-party complaint" would be more informative while still accurate. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

At the top of the PDF it says "Filed 01/10/14 Entered 01/10/14", and this source seems to use a similar citation style and specifies January 10th, so I'm guessing it's January 10, 2014. I'll update as appropriate. Shame that there isn't a standard citation template for that yet. Thanks for the info. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 18:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, the date doesn't display in my browser. Must be a plug-in issue. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Admission to the Union

Admission to the Union now has these sections:

1 The process of admission

2 Formation of states within the boundaries of existing states

3 Anticipated admission of new states under the Articles of Confederation

4 See also

5 Notes and references

There's still an immense amount on law and politics and history that is not there. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article, important topic; I'll try to put some time in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Fact vs. claim in litigation

A discussion here on when to treat something as a fact, versus when to treat it as a claim, may interest some who read this page. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Black's Law Dictionary, 2d edition

A project to incorporate the public domain 2d edition of Black's Law Dictionary is underway at English Wikisource. The project page is here, and here is an example of a completed page, if anyone wants to get on board. The goal of the project is to fix typos and scannos, and match the formatting of the original, after which missing Wikipedia topics can be identified from the materials. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hustler Magazine case, Requested move

Please see Talk:Hustler_Magazine,_Inc._v._Falwell#Requested_move_8_February_2015.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories - 'Law' vs 'Legislation'

There are (at least) two categories with unclear distinctions: Category:United States federal firearms law and its subordinate Category:United States federal firearms legislation‎. Some articles, like Gun Control Act of 1968, are in both. While I can imagine that 'legislation' would refer to acts and bills, while 'law' would refer to regulations and general articles, in practice the two categories seem to be used interchangeably. It'd be very helpful to define their scope so that articles can be properly categorized. Can anyone provide a useful distinction between these categories that we can add to their pages? Rezin (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the legislation category is intended to be a subset of the law category covering acts and bills, while the "law" category covers all legal matters relating to firearms in the US (legislation, case law, etc). I think if you find something that's in both, you can remove it from "law", since "legislation" is also in "law". Presumably the long-term goal would be to have everything in "law" subcategorized into more specific meaningful categories. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 18:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The intent is to distinguish the two so that the legislation category can be a subcategory of Category:United States federal legislation.—GoldRingChip 18:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. It sounds like we could place this text on the 'legislation' category: "This category includes acts and bills proposed or passed in the U.S. Congress." For the 'law' category, maybe: "This category includes all federal laws, regulations, case law, and legal issues concerning firearms. Specific congressional acts and bills should be in the 'legislation' subcategory, and court cases should be in the 'case law' subcategory." I'm sure those could be improved upon though. Rezin (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Article feedback/assessment request

Hi,

Undersigned had created article Legal awareness in may 2012. Since then I updated and improved the article many times in past one and half year.

I suppose a peer feedback will help me improve the article content still further. I request your kind support in this respect.

Mahitgar (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Credit card kiting

If anyone is familiar with the subject of Credit card kiting, please compare the current version with the previous version from 2013 and see which makes more sense. I think probably the earlier version but I don't know enough about the subject. 72.251.71.116 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make your edits WP:OR? It's quite possible though that the whole topic is, and should be taken to AFD rather than gutted. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "your edits"? I never made any edits to the article. As I said, I don't know enough. To me, it looks like the September changes are OR, removing all the refs. But on the other hand there was a justification in the edit summary, and the two main removed refs were to West's generally and to a blog that's now a dead link. AFD crossed my mind too, but someone who knows the subject better than me (you?) needs to take a look and decide. 72.251.71.11 (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I missed that it was a different IP that made those edits. I've never heard of this term, but some quick googling indicates that it's a meaningful concept at least in bankruptcy proceedings, where credit card kiting could constitute fraud with the intention never to pay off the debt, and therefore keep that debt from being discharged by the court.[9] postdlf (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas?. Prcc27 (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

review request: Grand Jury

Can someone take a look at recent edits to Grand jury. I feel there is some recent WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOXing occurring and would like an impartial review. If advised I'll submit an RfC.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 18:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Lawyer notability

How do we know if a lawyer is notable? --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:GNG or WP:BIO, or perhaps WP:POLITICIAN if they happen to hold a government post. We've never seen a need, nor established a consensus, for notability guidelines specific to lawyers. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment Change of article title from "Doctrine of reception" to "Legal reception"

Please do refere Talk:Doctrine of reception. While Doctrine of reception is mainly refered in context of reception of common law still actually; concept of legal reception seems to have wider scope ref to Max Rheinstein. I am requesting comments whether would it be more ok to rename this article as "Legal reception" being a broader term. Or do you suggest any other term for legal reception. If community approves I would be interested in expanding the article to some extant for legal reception.

At the same time google search shows that legal reception term is in use for altogether different meaning also. Hence i will appreciate your comments and openions on this subject.

Mahitgar (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)#Requested move 20 December 2014

There is an ongoing move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Streisand effect category deletion discussion

1. Category:Streisand effect
2. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_12#Category:Streisand_effect

Category:Streisand effect has been nominated for deletion, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_12#Category:Streisand_effect.

Feel free to participate there.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Revolutionary breach of legal continuity

Before I go to the trouble of proposing it for deletion, would any of you legal eagles like to add some citations to this completely unsourced article? It's been tagged as such for the last 6 years. Textorus (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Help, please

On this article - Gun show loophole:

• Some editors say that it is undue to mention failed legislation.[10]
• Others say that it is OR to list failed bills from congressional records.[11]

The first question I have listed at WP:NPOVN - Gun show loophoole.

The second I am still puzzling over how to respond, though the reverting editor has started a discussion here.

Advice, anyone? --Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I figured it out on my own at WP:PRIMARY, but feel free to chime in anyway, if you wish... Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension

Hi!

You are invited to participate in an RfC on Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#habeas_corpus_section) pertaining to the section of the Lincoln article (Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war).

We'd appreciate having some editors with legal interest joining the discussion!

Thanks.

Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

FGM

Is anyone here willing to check a sentence for me in Female genital mutilation? The article is going to be featured on the main page on February 6 as TFA, so I'm trying to make sure there are no errors or important omissions. The text says, of U.S. federal legislation against FGM, in this section:

In September that year [1996] the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act made it illegal to perform FGM on minors for non-medical reasons, and in 2013 the Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act prohibited transporting a minor out of the country for the purpose of FGM.

Sources

It would be extremely helpful if someone who knows how to use the best law sources would quickly check that this is accurate and up to date and that nothing important is missing. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Does the fact that an individual is a judge on the Supreme Court (i.e. Asoka Wijetunga) make the individual notable? There are no additional references cited showing that the indvidual presided over any signficant cases nor is there any independent verifable references provided relating to the individual. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Occupational Qualifications

I think Bona fide occupational qualifications and Genuine Occupational Qualification are should be merged to one article. --CDjanegirl (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate a WP:MERGE. GiantSnowman 10:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Need reliable sources

Hello there! I'm drafting an article on Terence P. Stewart and have enough content I gathered from several primary sources and whatever else I could find. I'm still having trouble finding solid references to back some things up. I'd really appreciate any help you could extend, perhaps using some law-specific resource? Let me know! Thanks! CesareAngelotti (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Darrell Brock Jr.

Can someone please look at the recent edits and say something about the terminology of "indiction". —George8211 / T 23:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorted some time ago. —George8211 / T 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Homan Square

Please, help with the breaking story. --NaBUru38 (talk)

I'll note that, while I don't have a source for this, human rights scholars in the Chicago area are skeptical of The Guardian's coverage. One prominent scholar has personally told me that he/she is refusing media requests to talk about Homan because there just isn't enough information available to say anything meaningful at this time (particularly because the entire story is based on exactly one interview with a person who was actually held at Homan, plus a smattering of second- and third-hand claims by interested lawyers). While I'm not saying we should integrate something like that in our article on Homan, I would suggest that we take great care in covering alleged human rights abuses at Homan Square. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the only thing in question is that it is done at Homan Square, not that it is done. Because it is relatively agreed that the activities alleged to have taken place not only do take place, but that they are likely legal under Illinois law and US jurisprudence. This seems to be missing from the section/article as is. And AFAIK these practices are banned in the EU under several directives and only survive in a few jurisdictions that have not effectively transposed the directives into law (e.g., Spain), which is probably why its news in the UK. Int21h (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)