Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

January 2009

Category naming

There is currently a discussion on the naming of the sub-categories to Category:United States Attorneys at CFD here. Pleas chime in if you can so we can get a consensus. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of cases and doctrines

There have been a couple of attempts to spark discussion on notability guidelines for legal topics in the past, but none came to anything resembling a conclusion. I nominated Moorov v HMA for deletion as non-notable, and regardless of the outcome of that discussion, wanted to know if there was anything approaching a consensus on useful notability criteria for cases and doctrines arising from cases (I won't further distinguish between these two ideas in this note).

I do not think that it would be the least bit useful to have an article on every appelate case that has been discussed in a casebook or law review article. Yet a simple reading of the WP:GNG could lead to a presumption that articles on every such case would withstand nomination for deletion.

Any thoughts? Bongomatic 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Law review articles may be stretching it, but it is useful for us to have an entry on any appellate case that appears in a casebook, as that makes us a resource for tens of thousands of law students to turn to on a regular basis. There number of law review articles vastly exceeds the number of casebooks, after all, and an article on an obscure topic may cite a minor case for a minor point. However, a case that generates an article which is predominately about that case is likely sufficiently notable to merit inclusion, as is a case that is referenced in a substantial number of articles (say, a half-dozen or more by different authors). Since Wikipedia is a volunteer project, it does not hurt the encyclopedia to host such things. bd2412 T 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting perspective, but I don't agree with all of what you say. From a practical perspective, having cases and what they stand for in Wikipedia seems like a bad idea--cases are overruled or supported frequently and in multiple courts, and it is the job of Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis, etc. to keep current on this, and the idea that Wikipedia could be current or accurate broadly on such a technical, enormous, and frequently changing field of information is not credible.
Notwithsntanding WP:NOTPAPER (which on its own has never struck me as a suitable reason for inclusion), there are numerous cases in casebooks that do not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a practitioner's guide.
On the other hand, for "landmark" cases whose status is stable or would be widely reported if they were to change (Raffles v Wichelhaus, Marbury v. Madison, Bowers v. Hardwick) seem like obvious candidates for inclusion.
If the whole world other than me thinks that every case in a casebook, or every case that is the main topic of a law review article merits inclusion, so be it. But does anyone have any more nuanced views in between that and this alternative: that only cases given significant coverage in reliable non-technical sources that are independent from the subject be included?
I am not making that argument (though I may later if no suggestions that seem better come forth), but am advancing it in order to get some alternative views. Bongomatic 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
My own personal interest in law is as part of history. I think every case that gets decided by the final court of appellate jurisdiction in a common law country is notable--at least in the modern era, where only the most important cases reach there,
Sorry to interrupt, but I don't think this is accurate. Cases where there are disagreements among circuits or cases for which the high court has original jurisdiction also get there. Bongomatic 08:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
and they are there because for the most part as a result of major public questions--both the H of Lords and the US SC are extremely selective in what they accept.
They may be selective, but their selection critera are not the same as the criteria for notability in respect of inclusion in an encyclopedia. For example, in Allen v. Siebert, the court (from my reading of the synopsis) was emphasizing what appears to be an obvious point that was ignored by an impudent appelate court below. I only had to get to #2 on this list. Bongomatic 08:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
we're providing information for general readers, not law students, and I think anything there qualifies as being of such interest. I am not sure how to apply this to earlier years, where many cases even at that level give me at least as an untutored person the appearance of being fairly routine--certainly the ones that reach casebooks are not routine, being the basic precedents.
Lots of cases that are not of general interest (normally defined) reach casebooks. This happens for a variety of reasons, including cases that non-uniquely stand for a principle, or cases that stand for a minor principle, twist on a principle, or occasional exception to a principle. Such cases would be notable (if at all) only in the context of the principle at issue. Bongomatic 08:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean that only such cases should be included, but that others should be selective. Certainly the ones in casebooks, which are highly selected, should be included, as recognized precedents. The standard of being widely cited in the literature applies--citation indexes, after all, were developed for law centuries before Garfield developed them for the sciences.
Nor do I know how to extend this to other legal systems, where the impact of an individual case is not so great. I think we'd have to go with the ones notable by their system of instruction & ones to which there are historical references.
as for legal doctrines as such, I think a lot is to be gained by consolidation into combination articles for all but the most notable. Again, the most notable, being the most referred to in history, politics, literature, or popular knowledge. DGG (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with this last bit . . . that notability of doctrines should be based on thier reference in non-technical sources. Just think that the cases should equally be treated this way. De facto inclusion is for almanacs, not encyclopedias. Bongomatic 08:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the general WP:N is sufficient. And under those guidelines, certainly any SCOTUS case (and equivalent in other countries) would meet that threshold.
This is not accurate if you take away technical sources (as a review of cases in the the above-mentioned list demonstrates, some SCOTUS cases are not given significant coverage in such sources), and in any event doesn't give rise to an automatic presumption. Bongomatic 08:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thus it is accurate since we don't remove "technical sources" (by which I assume you mean law journals). A RS is a RS regardless of if its technical or not. Per WP:RS: "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" so in a way, we want to use law journals as sources. As someone responsible for the website for an online law school based law journal, EVERY case that SCOTUS decides gets three write ups for us (cert, oral, decision), and I'm sure other journals cover their cases as well. And they are independent, and there is substantial coverage. Thus it meets N. (Plus as I said CNN usually has a write up, and I know with Oregon related ones the state-wide paper usually has a write up when it is granted cert and again when it is decided and would guess the same is done by many other papers). Notability is not universal or even world-wide or country-wide notability. Notability is notability, regardless of if it is of a regional or national basis, or even of specialized interest. I and I would assume most people could care less about 90% of the content on Wikipedia (2.6 million articles or so), as it is not notable to me. Who was the MP from X district in England in year XXXX does nothing for me. The latest cases out of the UK do nothing for me. But each is notable in their own right in those locations. Next, there is a problem with your argument above about your list and #2 regarding Allen v. Siebert. There is no article on the case. And notability guidelines only apply to stand-alone articles, "but do not directly limit the content of articles." Aboutmovies (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There are hundreds of law journals out there, just as there are journals for other areas such as biology and the like, and I would venture every SCOTUS case that gets decided will have at least one article on just that article, not to mention the regular press coverage the cases receive (I believe CNN does a story on just about everyone of them). Below that, a fair amount of U.S. Federal COA cases make the regular news (such as the pledge of allegiance case a few years back from the 9th) and many more end up in law review articles and in text books. Same with state supreme court and appellate court cases. But you get a decidedly lower number number of each as you go down the food chain. You will even have some decisions from trial courts that make the news and make it into text books. But with all of them, if there is substantial coverage from multiple sources, then it passes WP:N and should be included. This means almost any case in a textbook that is covered, that is not just mentioned or is in the notes as an after thought (i.e. it would not meet the substantial coverage requirement).
This conclusion avoids the discussion on the assumption that at least one person (me) thinks is desirable. You are saying that "because it's covered in a casebook, which is a reliable source, it's notable", while I'm asking, "for the purpose of establishing what we think of as notability for the purpose of inclusion in WP, is coverage in a casebook really a good indicator"? (And further, I think "no"). Bongomatic 08:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said. I said "almost". Not in every instance, but if it is in a case book, that is strong evidence that it is notable. There are usually many case books on a subject, and they will often repeat the same cases. Thus, if it then reaches the multiple sources, then it then meets WP:N. But remember, if it is in a case book, that means someone has taken note of the subject. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As to the notion of its not a practitioner's guide, most cases are of interest to legal folks, but many are also of interest to regular folks.
Yes, but many are not, and I'm suggesting that we try to come up with a practical and way of delineating the boundaries between those that are and aren't. If a de facto test is arrived at, you can count on someone starting 100,000 useless stubs that are never going to be filled in--not because nobody has time, but because so many of the cases will be of no interest to anyone. I don't see how this serves any users of WP. Bongomatic 08:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
We already have 100,000 useless stubs that are never going to be filled in on a variety of topics (varies on what you find important). I think this highlights why the notability standards are what they are, and should remain as they are. The guideline attempts to be objective, and you are trying to make it subjective by tying who they are notable to. This is a bad idea as it would lead to many existing articles being deleted because they are not notable to some group of people. Who are we to decide what case is of interest to who? And further, you seem to think cases that are of interest to only legal types should not be included, why? Are they second class citizens who should not have their area of interest covered as thoroughly as say a complete detailed guide to every episode of The Simpsons? Or maybe we should also exclude other minority views too. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And though most on Wikipedia are written like law review articles, that simply means they are of poor quality by Wikipedia standards and need to be wikified, not deleted. Further, I have little interest in advanced physics as well as little interest in the politics of Angola, and I would venture that most readers are likely the same. But we still have these topics because they pass the notability standards, and because some people are interested in the topic. Notability standards are not meant to keep out articles about things people haven't heard of or have little interest in (because these are far too subjective), they are mainly meant to prevent hoaxes and to ensure there are RS available to properly cover the topic.
Lastly, as to keeping them up to date, this is not really a concern. Any lawyer using Wikipedia instead of properly Shepardizing a case would likely face bar sanctions and maybe a malpractice suit. Plus, we cover many things that need updating, such as who is the head of state for every country, who is the mayor of every city, what treatments are used for what, who won what Golden Globe, etc. But we still cover those topics. Further, a good article about a case is an encyclopedic article and covers what the case stood for when decided, not necessarily what precedential value it now has, as that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We don't have headnotes, or multi-colored flags, those are the domain of legal publications. Wikipedia provides a basic knowledge perspective and then gives you the list of resources to go better research a topic. And frankly, as an elementary school student we were told we could not use encyclopedias as sources for any papers, we could only use them to get a basic understanding of the topic and for locating other sources. The same thing for law school. Thus anyone who uses Wikipedia as their primary resource for a topic gets an F in my book. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
See comments above to DGG in addition to inline relplies. Bongomatic 08:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have thought this over in light of my current casebook reading, which is on Food & Drug Law, and which contains a series of Court of Appeals cases presented as examples of what level of adulteration or decomposition the FDA can cite as a reason to condemn food. I will grant that most of these cases are not worthy of an article, as they are very short and simply recite the law rather than resolving some unusual question. Other texts on the subject likely contain similar cases, but not the same choices. I would say that the inclusion of the same case in two or more textbooks indicates that it is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. As I said above, a case that generates a law review article which is predominately about that case, or which is referenced in a half-dozen articles by different authors, should be deemed notable. Of course, appellate cases that receive substantial coverage in news media are likely notable as well. Not to overly complicate things, but I propose the following point system:

A case will need ten points to be deemed sufficiently notable to merit inclusion.
Reproduction in a casebook is worth five points.
Mention as a note case in a casebook is worth two points.
Being the subject of a law review article is worth five points.
Being referenced in a law review is worth two points.
Being the subject of a substantial news story is worth five points.
Being mentioned in a news story is worth two points.
Being cited as authority by the national Supreme Court in an unrelated case is worth one point.

That's the package, I think. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I've toyed with a point system for regular notability based on level of coverage in the source and how "popular" a source is. For instance lots of points for an article all about the subject in USA Today, not so many if it is in the local small town paper. But I think it ends up too mechanical for many people. Though I will say I would suggest a change of your 2 pointers to 1 point as you can get lots of cases mentioned with nothing more than a citation, but add a 3 pointer for if the case receives at least one paragraph of coverage, or something along those lines. This helps make it much more difficult if it is trivial coverage, while making it still possible for the instances where though the coverage isn't substantial, it is more than trivial. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. Get it? Point. Heh heh... ahem, well I agree with that division of mentions - one point for a mere mention (in a newspaper or a law review article), three points for a full paragraph. Also, if I did not underscore it enough above, only references by different authors should count. So, if the case is in both a casebook and a law review article, but by the same author, no additional points for the law review because that does not reflect a broad opinion of the importance of the case. bd2412 T 14:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/United States federal judges

For anyone who is interested in working on this, I've put together a list of everyone who has ever served as a U.S. district court, circuit court, or court of appeals judges here. The list is chock full of red links, of course, but the articles should be easy to assemble from information in the biographical database of the Federal Judicial Center, available here. Many of these can probably be solved with redirects as well. Do not trust all the blue links, some are other people with the same names. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Legal Debate

Wikipedia:Legal Debate, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Legal Debate and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Legal Debate during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eastlaw talk · contribs 10:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Constitution Act 1986 (New Zealand)

Could I have some opinions please on the matter under discussion at Talk:Constitution Act 1986, which has now spread to Talk:Independence of New Zealand.-gadfium 06:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Receivership and receiver (legal)

There is a request for a merger, they are not very big articles and I have volunteered to do the merging but they are Wikiproject:Law articles so if it's important say so. ~ R.T.G 01:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with this merger. bd2412 T 04:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

New to the project

I have created two articles, HM Advocate v Ross and Brennan v HM Advocate. Can someone please check them out? I thought I was writing them according to Wikipedia standards, but somebody placed this big tag on it about 'notability' which I don't quite understand.--I Really Love You, And I Mean You (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Add more of the kind of reference that I have added to Ross v H.M. Advocate - you can not merely say that it is important, but must show that it is by reference to other publications which say so. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LawNix and free knowledge

Hello everyone. Can I alert you all to the practice of this profit making website, "LawNix", which is pasting its own references to cases into pages here on Wikipedia. I always delete them when I see them, and I'd like to ask that you do to. LawNix is a profit making venture, through Googleads. It does not appear to be very reliable, and it's just a cheap, nasty form of learning which is probably used by young law students far too much. More importantly, Wikipedia should not serve as a place for people to advertise their commercial products - Wikipedia should definitely not encourage people to look at dodgy commercial products. So please do delete any such "external links" that you find. :) Wikidea 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a way to have external links blacklisted, so that an addition of the link can not be saved at all. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What are the specific edits being complained of? I'd not previously heard of Lawnix, but I just took a look at its website, http://www.lawnix.com/, and I don't see any reason to categorically ban links to it. For example, it has text of cases that, if referenced in an article, are worth linking to. The briefs, while intended to be law school briefs, also appear, on a quick sampling, to be cogent summaries of the cases they discuss. Links to their blog and to their course outlines would, of source, be in appropriate.
Wikipedia links to many commercial sites, and as far as I'm aware, the commercial nature of a site is not a reason to bar its inclusion. We include, for example, links to findlaw.com, despite that being a commercial site. As long as it stays on the right side of WP:LINKSPAM (which I can't form an opinion on in this case, not having seen the edits complained of), there's no bar to linking to a commercial site. TJRC (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll add my two cents to stick up for lawnix. I didn't know about the site when I was a 1L. I wish I had. I learned about it when I joined law review. This is THE go-to site for quick refreshers on important 1L cases. It serves a different role than Wikipedia because case briefs are not in an encyclopedia-type format. The ads are subtle and text-only. Findlaw on the other hand displays large picture ads and has much more of a "dodgy commercial product" look and feel. If you systematically purge links to lawnix you will be doing a great disservice. You should also apply your criteria impartially and purge links to findlaw and other such sites. TwoEll (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive me for being suspicious of this comment being your only contribution to Wikipedia. bd2412 T 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(judge) or (jurist)

We have a large number of articles which disambiguate common names by indicating that the subject is Joe Smith (judge) or Joe Smith (jurist). I feel that we should try to go with one or the other, and would like to know if anyone has a preference between them (or a reason why we should use both in different cases). Also, should we have guidelines on how much of a person's career should be occupied on the bench before we use either? bd2412 T 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it may be a title of prestige but I thought you were being silly and mixing up the judge with the jury. No legal background and non-American (God help me) Jurist says it is not specific to judiciary, but to law in learning and equally correct as Jurisconsult. ~ R.T.G 13:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That would be (juror), although I doubt there are many people famous enough for being a juror that their article would contain this parenthetical. But between (judge) and (jurist), it would seem to me that (judge) is more descriptive of a profession. bd2412 T 05:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If no one objects, I am going to start moving (jurist) entries to (judge), unless the subject is distinctly noted as a jurist (i.e. an expert on the law apart from having a judicial role). Cheers! bd2412 T

Why is Scots law based upon Roman law?

A discussion on the origins of the Scottish legal system is taking place at WikiProject Scotland. Editors of this article may be able to throw light on the topic. To contribute to the discussion, please click here. References, per WP:VERIFY, would be especially welcome! Thank you in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Added template to Ex post facto law article

Link Ex post facto law. One of those funny things you comes across, the only WP tagged for that article was Human Rights. I hope it's obvious why I included the article in this wikiproject. I did not declare quality or importance, though the latter probably should be top. Please take a look. IMHO (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Competition law

Competition law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can I get some eyes at competition law? I've identified 40 separate factual and POV and style problems with the article, but an editor who has ownership problems is refusing to collaborate on the talk page, or even to permit the article to be tagged, on the grounds that he doesn't like me. THF (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Crimes against humanity article

Link Crimes against humanity. Aside from the fact that any international law article is by nature a law article, a number of states incorporate crimes against humanity into their domestic law. Please visit the article and grade quality and importance. IMHO (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently experiencing some problems here because people are taking a bit TOO much initiative and splitting off the United States section, and then someone followed suit and split off the Canadian section in a bad way. I've reported the latter in the WikiProject Canadian Law, but I can't find one for US law so I'm posting it here so if someone knows please relay it there. We need to foster discussion about this. I personally think it actually is growing a bit big and a split wouldn't be the most horrible thing. This isn't merely a case of Americentric editing (though I'm not surprised if it's what the most legal info is compiled about) but rather, the individual laws that each state has regarding sexual consent (as opposed to a universal federal law in the case of most other countries) it simply takes up a very large amount of room. Another country which could end up this way if we ended up having info on it would be Japan seeing as how it has both a national minimum, and then higher numbers for the different prefectures, which have independant laws just like the American states do. So, if we can get info on that (interwiki with wikipedia.jp?) then if America gets its own I propose Japan gets its own following that. Tyciol (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the first Saxbe fix, which became effective on March 4, 1909 and facilitated a March 6, 1909 appointment. I have been trying to get this through the WP:FAC process so that I can propose it at WP:TFAR to be a WP:TFA. Because of its centennary and its membership in an underrepresented category of articles, it would have extremely high priority and almost assuredly be approved for the main page on either the 4th or the 6th if it is promoted to WP:FA. I intend to renominate it at WP:FAC in five to seven days for one final attempt at FA promotion. The article could use any assistance that you may be able to lend in terms of copyediting so that it represents the best of WP. This is your chance to get invovled not only in a FA if we get this cleaned up, but an FA that would surely go to the main page. Please come help clean this up. Also, any details on the Hilda Solis fix that you may be able to find to properly cite that eventuality would also be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding too harsh, I'm going to offer my opinion candidly. In my opinion the Saxbe fix article would need a lot of work before it would merit the distinction of becoming a FA. Considering the serious ownership problems that are evident from examining the revision history, I don't think this is going to happen in the near to intermediate future. I think it is a waste of effort for anyone to try to improve it since someone will merely revert it. JaDcam (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to revisit the ownership in the history. Note that at least five editors have over ten edits on the article in the last week or so. Commentary welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Receivership and Administrative receivership

Hi, I have completed the merger of Receivership and Receiver (legal). It has been suggested that Administrative receivership should also be merged to Receivership. It is basically the same thing, yes? ~ R.T.G 14:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this merger as well. The combination of these entries will yield a single, far more comprehensive and useful piece on receivership in its various formulations. bd2412 T 17:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. Administrative receivership cries out to be a "United Kingdom process" section in Receivership. TJRC (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will have a go at that now ~ R.T.G 15:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment from an expert on UK computer misuse law

I've highlighted something I believe is a misinterpretation of the law at Talk:Copyright infringement#Computer misuse act!?, and would appreciate comment from somebody who knows the subject better than I do. JulesH (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Varian v. Delfino

An anon editor is edit-warring to return unsourced material about living people. Sources are likely available, but the article is very much a one-sided affair that needs work.

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar.

I'd clean this up myself, except I was classmates with one of the attorneys who had the misfortune of having to litigate this case, and I'm trying to steer clear of COI allegations myself. THF (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New article

Hey guys, I created an article on Rivera_v._Illinois. It's currently an orphan and probably doesn't meet all the formatting requirements you guys have for law articles. I've got the ball rolling though, so if you want to pitch in, thanks in advance. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim Howard (attorney)

Lawyers needed to eyeball an autobiography that survived AFD. THF (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject United States courts and judges

I have proposed, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject United States courts and judges, to break out a new project just on United States courts and judges. Please visit and comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural born citizen of the United States‎‎

There is a non-trivial dispute going on at Natural born citizen of the United States over the content of the article. People interested in this topic who are not already following the matter might want to go have a look at this article's revision history and talk page. Richwales (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental rights deletion-by-redirect

The article Fundamental right is tagged as being of high importance within your project on its talk page. Despite this fact, Hauskalainen (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (also current wqa) and Buridan (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have made several attempts to redirect it to other tangentially related topics. Both seem to think it better to make the article go away than to actively encourage anyone to fix it (see their comments and mine at Talk:Fundamental right#Remove reference to the European Union. Merge article with other long standing articles on the topic and Talk:Universal Declaration of Human Rights#Merger with Fundamental Rights). I have neither the time nor the expertise to deal with this article more directly than I already have right now, quite aside from the fact that two users can easily out-revert one, especially when the two are each on track to set personal monthly editcount records. Thus, I bring this to your attention in the hope that, if you truly find the article to be that important, some one or more of you who know more about it than I do can make the changes necessary to achieve WP:CON on this issue. I have posted this same notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy, and made note of it at Talk:Fundamental right. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 21:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

everything is fine now, the issue with fundamental right.... was that it was a stub with a list of wikilinks, that otherwise had no verifiable content. i redirected it to human rights, which has the same comment, mostly verified. I wouldn't call it tangentially related, nor did i make several attempts. i redirected it once to human rights, after the gentleman above took off a redirect which was set to udhr, which was a misconceived redirect. And i am no where near setting a personal editcount record. Back in 2006.... well.....--Buridan (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I dispute Buridan's definition of "fine." I believe Buridan is confused as to the difference between "unverifiable" (cannot be done) and "unverified" (hasn't been done yet). I am convinced that Buridan neither knows nor cares about fine-line legal distinctions between topics such as fundamental rights and human rights. And finally, not that it matters, it's clear that Buridan hasn't actually checked the editcount, which shows 213 edits this month: indeed a new personal record. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 23:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
it is also clear that i wouldn't actually check an edit count as it is fairly meaningless, though it does say something about my procrastination. if there is a fundamental right, that is not a human right, feel free to merge it.--Buridan (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this redirect was a mistake. It's not that there are fundamental rights which aren't human rights; but not all "human rights" are "fundamental rights." It is a distinct legal doctrine, the subject of millions of gallons of spilled ink. Does this not justify the separation of the articles? I for one, would be willing to add several hundred words of copy if we could undo this blunder.Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that having a redirect rather than an article is a mistake, and I'll fully support you in returning it to article status (I'll be happy to chip in as well). bd2412 T 01:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
BD - always the voice of reason. Non Curat Lex (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

[-unindent-] I have restored the article and made some changes to clear up the proper focus thereof I can't do any more on it rght now, and some of what I have added violates NOR and SYN, so help is requested. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Birthright citizenship in the United States of America

There are non-trivial disputes going on at Birthright citizenship in the United States of America over the content of the article and the appropriate use of certain sources. People interested in this topic who are not already following the current controversies might want to go have a look at recent developments in this article's revision history and on its talk page. Richwales (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Treaty title guidelines?

Are there established guidelines for treaty titles? In the Pacific Northwest alone I know of teh Hay-Herbert Treaty (aka the Alaska boundary settlement/treaty), the Russo-American Treaty of 1824, its counterpart the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825, aka the Treaty of Saint Petersburg (1825), the Russo-British/Anglo-Russian Convention of 1839 (no article yet, deliberating on title), the Treaty of Washington (1846), aka the Oregon Treaty, and the Treaty of Washington (1871) (which ended the San Juan Island dispute and also established/guaranteed British navigation rights on the Yukon River (and I think guaranteed British access to the Stikine River, which the US had challenged after buying Alaska. This seems to be the only WP where international law titles might have any sort of regular guideline, unless there's some area of WP:History covering diplomatic history. Any suggestions on standards for titles, or is it a free-for-all? If not, then I cant htink of a good dozen treaties whose titles might need eradjusting to fit whatever is the correct format.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR notification for Dietrich v The Queen

I have nominated Dietrich v The Queen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law

There are several pending AFD nominations where some editors are claiming that an attorney's name on a filed brief or listed in a Westlaw opinion as one of several attorneys on record is the sort of verifiable reliable source that conveys notability. This would imply that nearly every litigator in the United States satisfies WP:N. If you have an opinion on this issue, you may wish to comment on these pending nominations. THF (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

I would love for members of this WikiProject to check out this article for various reasons, but mostly because an editor is currently arguing that we cannot use primary sources in the form of legal documents and court records as sources in the article because it violates WP:BLP. Whether you agree or disagree, I'd love some input about this on the talk page, and about any other issues you may have with the article. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it and rated it C class. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikify Economic Recovery and Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2009

Could someone take a look at this article? It keeps some help in its stucture, maybe some more content. Not my area of expertise. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Lydia Foy

Help please.

I've created Lydia Foy, and I'm developing it.

  • Should it be renamed to Foy v An t-. Ard Chlaraitheoir?
  • I've been in email contact with the FLAC lawyer representing Ms Foy. His comments were uncritical and positive, he welcomes the article. He brought a few minor corrections and updates to my attention, which I am addressing (with suitable WP:RS, I'm not depending on him as a source). He politely requested that the first names of Ms Foys' former partner and her children be removed - but he acknowledged that he could not insist upon it. He would prefer to retain their privacy. The names are easily found via google from WP:RS. I'm not sure if the names add to the article, so ask here, do you think they should go? Personally, I think the names of the children could be removed without much impact, but I'd keep the partners name, as it makes the prose better.

Any other help, comments, criticism would be welcome. (Please edit it if you can improve it)

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  16:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is correctly entitled. Nothing appears prima facie out of sorts. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:20, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Stem cell laws

I'd like to start drafting an article about "Stem cell laws". Is that the best name, or would something along the lines of "Law fo stem cells"? Should I complete as much as possible in my user space, or open it up ASAP? How controversial would it be? How broad or narrow should it be? What links are essential? Is it notable, or would it be too much "list-cruft"? Bearian (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Kumin Sommers LLP

Hi guys, take a look at this one. I've blanked the page because it was spammy, because I got 0 Google hits indicative of notability, and because I couldn't find references to reliable sources on the company's web page. However, I declined the speedy deletion because I have a feeling people in the company could come up with newspaper articles establishing notability if they worked at it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have left it speedied. As you note, it was spammy with no assertion of notability. If it later turns out to be notable, itd pretty much have to be rewritten from the ground up, anyway. TJRC (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't get any quick response from the creator, so I've taken this to AfD. If another admin had speedied this article, I'd have no objection at all, that's by-the-book. The reason for not speedying this is that when I read their website, I get the feeling that there are probably 200 newspaper articles out there that would help to establish notability for the firm; they just didn't know that that's what we needed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but as I read it, the page as it existed before you blanked it was marked for speedy deletion. See [1]. What I mean by my comment above is that I would have it subject to the speedy rather than blanking it. TJRC (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, it was marked for speedy deletion. I do a lot of the CSD deletions these days for db-attack, db-spam and db-copyvio, and I turn down a fair number of them and take them to AfD if my guess is that the end result of the discussion is going to be that the article winds up being retained in some form and people are happy about that. I think this is one of those cases ... we'll see. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge of hard and soft drugs into Drug policy

Join in the fun at Talk:Drug_policy#Merger_proposal - 'hard' and 'soft' are merely two adjectives whose whole being lies within the concept of drug policy, and it should all be on the one page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

I'm attempting to massively improve our coverage of various judges, jurists and barristers. So far I've done Lord Mansfield, Lord Denning and Norman Birkett, and I've got an article on Patrick Hastings being worked on in my sandbox. I am, however, only one bloke; could anyone interested in collaborating on such things give me a poke on my talkpage? Ironholds (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Style debate - "Act" or "act"

There is a centralised-ish discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#act (statute) on whether we should use "Act of Parliament" or "act of Parliament" - we have historically used the former, but there's a move to systematically use the latter.

This debate went around in a circular shouting match earlier in the month, and it'd be nice to have it settled one way or the other! I figure most of those interested will see this, so if people could leave some opinions either way (or even a "don't care"), it'd be great, and hopefully we can get a clear consensus on it this time so the argument doesn't drag out indefinitely again... Shimgray | talk | 11:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Discussion of File:Lolicon Sample.png

An editor has brought up a concern that this image is illegal and should be deleted. Please come participate in the discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How can we work with the law student community? ...

What do you think of these ideas, to engage more JD students in improving articles on U.S. caselaw -- After exams I'd be willing to contribute heavily to these projects.

  • A proposal for a new community page - a portal/homepage/community page for "law students"/"US JDs"
  • A proposal for a new series of articles: An article for each casebook, containing a hyperlinked list of the "table of cases" (perhaps organized according to the table of contents). Students with that casebook might use that as their "portal" (or even homepage).
  • A proposal for systematic additions to certain existing articles (my favorite idea!): how about adding a new section at the bottom of caselaw articles, "Casebook appearances". It would have sub-headings by casebook, with hyperlinks to: the other cases that the authors have chosen to distinguish it from; the "topic area" it appears under; and the related law review articles invoked by the authors. (I'd argue that it's within the precedent set by other Wikipedia articles. I'd like to have the discussion, because [setting aside the "precedent" issues] it seems like a very USEFUL idea.)

Agradman (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You could probably make a US constitutional law casebook, couldn't you already? I'm hopefully getting towards this with English contract law - and there's now 125 cases in <Category:English contract case law> - the US stuff is pretty poor by comparison for contract, tort, or corporate law; labour law too. I think this is EXACTLY what Wikipedia needs to be! Wikidea 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Legally-minded oversight of BC Legislature Raids article

This article has a host of needs, including updating a fairly complex or at least very large amount of material not yet in it and also potential splits between topics as the scandal ensuant on the raid (there was only one raid, really, but "raids" has become commonplace as a term), and in general needs to be watched for legal technicalities and court-procedural details. Recent events and revelations have notched up the stakes quite a bit higher, and I was concerned to read true but POV-written copy tonight by way of a direct allegation against one of the now-known-to-be-principals; I tidied up the language a bit and introduced a citation by one column I know on the new subject matter, but given further complications in the imbroglio I thought it was to come here and ask Wiki-Law people to keep an eye article on it; all the better if you're Canadian or familiar with Canadian law, politics and court procedures but if you're not, a legal eye on what's ultimately going to start showing up in this article should be present. One Wiki-law person I know has had to recuse himself from direct editing although he does keep an eye on the article. Anyway trying to be less obtuse, here's the core issues and topics of law-interest as things stand at the moment.

  • Patrick Kinsella, the Liberal Party campaign boss these last two elections, has been described in the court proceedings related to the trial, as having been on both government/seller and private/buyer sides of the sale of BC Rail to CN Rail. He has similarly, it is alleged, consulted for companies engaged in other privatization and "giveaway" economic policies of the government, including while being Liberal Party campaign boss (as I understand it, that last bit); too many and not to the point to list just now; the implication is that he did so in close relations with the Chief of Staff with the Premier. Kinsella has no lobbying license, and while this is a clear violation there are no enforcement measures built into the current lobbying legislation, reform of which has been successively delayed.
  • Leonard Krog, an NDP/opposition MLA and point-man on the Railgate Scandal, as it's now called, yesterday made public a filing of complaint with the RCMP about Kinsella and others involved, including those who made payments to politicians for benefits; ironically the core case, the Basi-Virk Trial, where all this came out, is about solicitation and sale of benefits and related money laundering. The RCMP have so far sat on the sidelines, at least since the original laid on the offices of the Premier in the legislature at the end of 2003, and there are close ties between senior RCMP staff and the Liberal Party both politically (members of cabinet/caucus) and personally (the Premier's brother-in-law, e.g.). There is mounting pressure on the RCMP, now formally made by Krog in front of television cameras, to investigate the proceedings of the BC Rail sale and Kinsella's lobbying activities and other matters, though there remain doubts that they will do anything (those who know anything about BC politics will remember that premier Glen Clark was hounded from power by RCMP prosecution fo a case that went nowhere, also launched in front of television cameras. OK now for the Wiki-Law really important part:
  • Kinsella as of today threatened to launch legal action against Krog and the NDP for their allegations and while the NDP have clammed up for today, they're not likely to back down (we'll see, they've been known to swallow their tongues before...). Now, the recent edit I didn't so much undo as fix up and cite was a direct stateemnt that Kinsella had done something, not something illegal in and of itself (other than being unlicensed lobbying activity) but something very politically volatile - being responsible for a clause in the deal that tax credits and associated indemnities will mean that the $1 billion sale (market value was $2 billion) will ultimately turn into less than $500 million or less if the federal government doesn't honour the tax credit formula that was part fo the sale; an IP user had added some very POV-written content, with different figures than the ones I just named (which are in the current citation there, a column by Vaughan Palmer, who's not normally a critic of the Liberals). So mindful of an impending civil suit by Kinsella - meant to trump Krog's attempt to get a criminal investigation properly underway (the further question is begged as to why if the RCMP were holding all this evidence under seal, as was the case for a few years of the proceeding, they did not prosecute anyone but underlings in the equation...) - if Kinsella's case goes forward there may be a related court ban which coudl silence all discussion of the sale and its details; this on the eve of an election....
  • this was the new edits that prompted my concern and this is what I did sbout it (for now.

So why I'm here is to ask Wiki-law types to have a close watch on edits to this article3, re NPOV and also legality, likewise if Patrick Kinsella becomes a bluelinked article, which seems inevitable in very short order. I'm thinking in terms of BLP's anti-libel guideline et al, as well as hoping for someone who knows Canadian jurisprudence sufficient to keep an eye on legal/court details as the article grows, as inevitably it must. Myself I'm very POV and think the thieves have been caught dancing in the cookie jar and have my doubts about the motives of the police and the neutrality of the court, but you can wind up with contempt charges in Canada for questioning the integrity of the courts; but I'm concerned that Wikipedia not transgress any legal technicalities or court orders that may yet arise, particularly if the Kinsella lawsuit gets the court seal that seems inevitable unless the RCMP act on Krog's allegations and place charges against him; but if they place charges against him, the implication is that the Premier and various others, including CN, shoudl all be charged by the Commercial Crimes Unit. Election day, by the way, is May 12......Further points of Wiki-law interest:

  • As of today, April 22 2009, a hearing to allow a secret witness to appear in the Basi-Virk Trial is being held in the Supreme Court of Canada. The hearing would exclude defense counsel and would be heard by a sealed court only; In SCC Case Information Summary 32719 it says the hearing is "Whether counsel for the accused may be present at in camera hearing to determine whether informer privilege applies to protect material from disclosure" the use of the term "privilege" implies a member of the Privy Council is who is being talked about; the further impliation is that it is the Premier but it may refer to another member of cabinet.
  • Former Liberal MLA Paul Nettleton has alleged a wider range of criminal-law infractions, including collusion by the whole Liberal caucus, of which he had been a part until resigning over the sale (see this); he has since moved from BC and has a nice quiet job in Nunavut or one of the other territories; I've added next-to-nothing to his bio because of BLP and not wanting to raise too much muck.
  • sub judice has been invoked by the Premier, Attorney-General and other members of the government in order to evade questions relating to the sale, even though many of the revelations coming out of the evidence do not directly have to do with the charges, or the defendants, in the current case; how valid this is is of course questionable but it's not something that Wikipedia can say directly; there's lots of op-ed and blog material out there about it, but little in the way of "reliable sources" because the major papers/networks have kept away from the case until very recently.

Well, I didn't mean to be POV but it's hard not to be; but I thought I better apprise the WP:Law community of the impending ramifications of the case and the SCC hearing on the secret witness, and of any related cases that may be forthcoming, and of my concerns about libel and libel chill relating to Kinsella's threats to Krog and the NDP. Earlier incarnations of this article were beset by edits by SPAs relating to the Erik Bornmann and Mark Marissen articles, though in terms of the scale of the scandal as it is now they were just bumps in the road as far as players in the story go. Anyone who wants more information/links/background on this is welcome to ask it of me, like I said I just wanted to do a "heads up" about Kinsella's threats of a defamation/libel suit, which makes it important this article be monitored by those with sharp legal eyes.Skookum1 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A summary of the defence's strategy and of the case in general is given in The Globe and Mail as of today, April 23, 2009. In it I see I was wrong about the brother-in-law relationship mentioned above, which was not with the Premier directly but with a close associate who is the Executive Director of the BC Liberals. T has been no informatino forthcmoing about the secret witness hearing in the SCC see here though a link is provided by a post-or to that blog for an SCC information site.Skookum1 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Case management#disambiguation and merge needed. any thoughts ? Earlypsychosis (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

'Case Management' is a term used by lawyers, the judiciary, health care workers, and by others. In each field it refers to a client, patient, or the matter at hand. In law it is used extensively to refer to the process by which we manage the data generated by our cases. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: in addition to managed data, it also refers to the process of managing cases, from initial client contact through file closure. Sctechlaw (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

New article on open US Supreme Court case

I just started a new article on a current, open US Supreme Court case. I'm not sure if I did it right, so any review would be welcome. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it, and its a nice start. For improvements, try converting the references to footnotes (see WP:FOOTNOTE) which will make it easier to parse where what info came from where when it gets updated. Also, one reference is a Wiki, which in general fail as reliable sources, so maybe find a different source. As to content, how did they win at the trial level (summary judgment, bench trial) and on what grounds. Then, basically the same thing for the COA, including why they thought SCOTUS should review (possibly a split in the circuits?). With that info, then I would split it into two sections outside of the lead; "Background" which would be that first main paragraph plus the part of the first sentence of the second main paragraph (i.e. how many whites/hispanics "passed" the test), and then "Lawsuit" for the second main paragraph and the new info. But those are just ideas. Great job so far. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Summer project

In the summer I plan to overhaul English contract law completely, hopefully getting the main article and several other ones up to GA. Is there anyone who would be interested in working on this with me? Ironholds (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds, after my exams end May 15 I will be glad to lend what help an american can. let's stay in touch. Agradman (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Specifying jurisdictions

Could I politely request that editors writing articles on legal topics specify clearly and explicitly which jurisdictions they apply to, at least as examples? It's not fair to require readers simply to assume that a concept is "US unless otherwise stated", so to speak, or to imply that US law somehow applies to the entire world. I happened across argumentative just now, which has this very problem (and, worse, is unreferenced). I'm aware that this is not an omission confined to law-related articles, but it does seem to be uncomfortably widespread in them. Loganberry (Talk) 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I always do it in cases (X is a leading case in English law...), but I'll make sure to make that clear if we encounter it. For UK-related things it looks like we're going to have "legal principle X in English law", which should help. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Generally it's US-related articles that are the worst offenders, but Eng/Wal articles do it to some extent too. (The few Scottish pages I've seen are usually careful to specify their application.) Loganberry (Talk) 17:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yar, a lot of the English cases aren't standardised. The contract law ones should be after June/early July. Ironholds (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Generally, US lawyers use the Bluebook citation format, but laypersons may not know to do this. Requesting Bluebook format for US law articles would be helpful. Sctechlaw (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Its a problem I raised ages and ages ago and one of the (two) reasons why I don't edit much now. You can't take an article written from the US point of view and make it more worldwide if you don't know what your reading really *is* the US. I'd like to say something like "in the US easements can be in gross, but not in England and Wales" or some such, but hey, I don't know what weird stuff they get up to over the Atlantic. 8-). Francis Davey (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

is it possible to get an EXTERNAL website to cause wikification to redirect to wikipedia?

I was hoping to put my law school casebook's table of contents into a wikipedia article, but I was informed that this is a copyright violation. Conceding the point, I am looking for an alternate way to wikify the table of contents (because it contains, literally, hundreds of names of major cases, and because a wikified table of contents would make law school INFINITELY LESS PAINFUL.) What I'd like to do is post this content to my personal webpage, and take the responsibility for the copyright infringement solely into my own hands.
Here's my question: suppose I have a fully-formatted wikipedia article. Is it possible to find an EXTERNAL website that will
1. recognize the wikification (e.g., so that [[dog]] will link to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dog)
2. color non-existent articles in red, so that readers will know which articles to populate with info?
Thanks very much.
PS: Here's an example of an arguably infringing wikification of a table of contents. As you can imagine, this type of Wikification could vastly improve the law school experience -- if we could just find a way to do it without violating wikipedia's copyright policies. Agradman (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a policy at WP:EL of not linking to works posted in violation of copyright - I think this would certainly fall under that. My idea would be this; the cases apply to various areas of law, yes? Get our articles on those areas of law up to a decent standard so that they include all those cases within the prose and we make law school even less painful than the listification would. It will take longer, of course, but it will also make it a much more useful setup. Ironholds (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

School prayer

Does anyone want to tackle the School prayer article? Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Equal Protection Clause

I have nominated Equal Protection Clause for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lysander Spooner Quote Suitable?

Is the Lysander Spooner quote the most suitable for a project of this nature and scope? I admire Spooner for many reasons (not least of which his battle with the US Postal Service, forcing them to reduce the price of their stamps, before they eventually forced him out of business), but the fact is Spooner was an anarchist. It is true that Spooner wrote extensively on legal theory, but one of his main contentions was that the jury should have the right to ignore the law. He saw the jury as the last protection against a corrupt state. I do not question his intentions - he was a righteous man - but I question whether his views are representative of the legal profession in general. Certainly it is not a mainstream view that a jury should be able to directly ignore and countermand a judge's direction. Furthermore, as evidenced by the quote, Mr Spooner was a proponent of natural law (the belief that there is an objective set of ethics which is the sole true basis for a law's legitimacy... as opposed to positivism, which states that a law's legitimacy stems not from its morality but from whether it was validly enacted). The debate between natural law and positivism is over 3000 years old and has not been solved to this day. It is perhaps biased to promote here one side of this debate (and this may be compounded by the fact that in modern times natural law is decidedly less popular than positivism; I myself identify strongly with natural law, but I still feel this point should be made). I understand the suitability of this admittedly catchy quote is not a major issue, but it springs immediately to mind when I visit the project page, so I was wondering if anybody else had a view. Captaindwayne (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that you drew my attention to it, he does seem like an odd spokesperson. Want to explore some alternatives? (please add to the list) Agradman (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Law is the rule, principle, obligation or requirement of natural justice.—Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (1860)
2. Law; an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community.- Saint Thomas Aquinas
3. At his best man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.- Aristotle
4. A law is valuable not because it is law, but because there is right in it.- Henry Ward Beecher
5. Arms and laws do not flourish together.- Julius Caesar (Gaius Julius Caesar), in Plutarch's "Parallel Lives", "Julius Caesar"
6. Non est princeps super leges, sed leges supra principem.- Pliny the Younger (Caius Caecilius Secundus),
7. Let us consider the reasons of the case. For nothing is law that is not reason.- Sir John Powell, Coggs vs. Bernard, 2 Lord Raymond's Reports 911
8 The law is reason, free from passion. Aristotle
9 The maxims of law are these: to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due. - Justinian, Institutiones 1:3 (Iuris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.)
I quite like this'n; anyone have a problem with me changing it to this? Ironholds (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I think that was a decent change Captaindwayne (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Law citation templates?

Has any work been done on standardizing citations of legal codes in Wikipedia, e.g. through the creation of any Wikipedia:Citation templates for that purpose? I didn't see any on that page, or here, or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian Law (which I checked because the specific citation I was concerned with was for Candadian law). Thought I'd drop a note here if any work had been done, but not sufficiently publicized. 67.150.14.173 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The link to citation templates illustrates that wikipedia does not use legal citation.
Wikipedia citation:
  • Breyer, Stephen (October 1972), "Copyright: A Rejoinder", UCLA Law Review 20: 75–83
Legal "blue book"/Westlaw/Lexis citation:
  • See Stephen Breyer, Copyright: A Rejoinder, 20 UCLA L.Rev 75-83, (1972)
So I would say, just go crazy; make it up if you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.140.2 (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
We normally use the Harvard citation system for journal articles such as that. I don't think we've ever claimed to use blue book/OSCOLA templates, except for case citations. Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
See Category:Law citation templates. There are a variety of templates for citing cases and legislation, though because different countries have different methods for citation, there's little standardisation. --bainer (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, we have a BAILII one, nifty. I must make sure to use that in future. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Document

I stumbled over this article, which lacked templates and needs a cleanup. I slapped a law template on the talk page, and then thought it might overlap with some pre-existing article. All input/proposed mergers etc. welcome. Not my area :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR on USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A

I have nominated USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR on Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

I have nominated Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.. Ironholds (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, (1897)

Just created this article. Give a once over, please? Thanks. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Hey, fabulous job on the article. I'm surprised such an important case didn't have an article for so long, and I'm glad you did such a good job the first time around.
  • The "case brief" structure that I imposed is just a personal preference -- I think it makes caselaw articles a bit easier on the eyes -- and it also makes Wikipedia caselaw articles more readily consumable by law students, which is their largest audience ... Agradman (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks excellent, yes. One of these days we need to make a single, internationally-applied template for law articles, though. English cases use a different format on en-wiki than say, American ones; really there should be standardisation as much as possible. Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, we need a template for caselaw articles. I'd like to collect some examples of what you guys regard as good, and bad, examples of how to write and format caselaw articles. Please put your candidates on this page. examples of good and bad caselaw articles. In the fall, I will be exploiting my position in student government to recruit classmates to work on Wikipedia law articles, and I'd like to direct them to a best-practices guide or something. Agradman (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Got to be honest, most English articles are shit. Normally the setup goes:
  • Background (facts and the law prior to the case)
  • Case (the actual litigation)
  • Judgement (judgements)
  • Aftermath (impact/later changes).

What I'd like to see is:

  • Ironholds, maybe I don't understand what you mean by a template. Can you give me an example of a "template" that would function like the one you're proposing? When you say "template," I think of those boxes on the right side of major United States Supreme Court cases. Agradman (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yup, thats what I was thinking of. We have one we use for English cases, although its a lot more ugly. Ironholds (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Most English cases are not "shit"!!!! Especially not the ones I've created (or the ones I've put effort into, which is more than a few). The Facts/Judgment approach which I employ follows exactly the same method as every good casebook on the market. Usually you don't see a "Legal issue" section - although it's very important, but it's all part of the "Facts". You're right though, with more time hopefully every case can have a section after the judgment for the "Aftermath/impact" as you say. I think you mean to include commentary by authors in journals through casenotes, academic criticism, whether the case was overturned/distinguished. Still not sure about best word - maybe "Responses" or "history", or something like that? Wikidea 17:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

By "shit" I mean "they're ground-breaking, yet consist of 3 lines of what the case is about and 30 lines of judgement with no context". None of them have any explanation of the law or why the legal problem occurred, for example, which is important since the articles we have on English contract law also fall under "shit" at the moment (I've been trying to write a privity one in a sandbox, but 9 to 5 at a firm of solicitors is cutting into my time). "Impact" or "Aftermath" would be the best for academic responses and so on imo. I also think we should cut down the judgements given in quotes significantly. Ironholds (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"Impact" and "Aftermath" would be better stated with the single word "Significance". Such a word would leave editors with a little more breathing room. "Impact" sounds too oriented to the legal signficance, while "Aftermath" sounds too geared toward subsequent procedural history and socio-political reaction. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Significance works for me. "X case significantly changed the rules regarding the doctrine of Y. Academic 1 says, [insert bullshit academic quote], Academic 2 (who has abbreviated his initials as I. M. Ponce or something similar to look more important) agrees, saying in his book narcissist piece of drivel [statement designed to mimic Denning in an attempt to be remembered after his death]" Ironholds (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Significance is good. Well done! And Ironholds, when I see you creating 500 case pages in your spare time, I'll think it's alright for you to use the word "shit". But for now, it's more important to me to put pages up and come back to them later, right? In other words it was "shit" when there was nothing. A better description might be that the one line judgment descriptions are "still a bit poor". :) And can both of you please go to the deletion page I've listed below and support the non-deletion of the "by judge" categories? Wikidea 08:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't get your knickers in a twist, I wasn't referring to your articles specifically. I'm not going to support the non-deletion because I can't really think of a good, policy-based reason to include them all. Really all notable judgements by an individual should be referenced in his article somewhere and accessible through there (which is the same reasoning I used for "list of cases by Lord Denning"). Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

European Communities Act 1972 (UK)

Please could those project participants with an understanding of the ECA 1972 and the effect that withdrawal from the European Union would have on the UK's international law obligations, please have a look here and give their opinion. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, doing so. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aviation regulations

This has been nominated for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible renaming

For two reasons, court system articles are named (for example) "Minnesota State courts." One is that this is simple English (Strunk and White and all that) and 2) it alphabetizes itself. Nevertheless, I think the less attractive "Court system of Minnesota" focuses the reader on the fact that all states (and maybe even nations) have a similarly named article, and not just Minnesota. Also, while not a problem here, gives a good example to other editors considering naming articles: general topic first in title - specific target second, not first. Student7 (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please save categories on Caselists by judges!

Please come save this category - Category:Case law lists by judge - and comment on this page, for the deletion discussion]. Wikidea 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Common scold

I have nominated Common scold for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was curious whether people expect Wikipedia to ever become the legal-research platform of first choice (or if they can refer me to discussions about this online), and if so, how they think that would come about. I started a discussion about this at WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court (here) and I'd appreciate hearing what you have to say. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 01:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean "place for finding stuff about law" rather than "place for doing journal-style legal research". In theory, yes, although when it will happen is unknown in practice. Essentially we want to collate all the information and present a factual, neutral article on it. Really, though, that's the plan with WP generally; where X is a topic, the plan is always to have the X research platform of first choice. Ironholds (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
We can certainly become the first stop for an overview of any given field of law, and even a state-by-state (and country-by-country) analysis of that field. However, as Ironholds suggests, we will never carry journal articles (eventually Wikisource may have some of the very old ones that have fallen into the public domain), and it is unlikely that we will ever have articles on the vast majority of cases, many of which are useful for citing on a point of law but otherwise non-notable. bd2412 T 02:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well in theory we should have articles on any case which establishes a point of law. A case that is simply used to illustrate a point of law shouldn't be included though, no. Ironholds (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But do we include a case because it establishes that a point of law already established in ten judicial districts in a given state is also established in the eleventh? bd2412 T 04:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, good question. I assume by "state" you mean "recognised nation"? Yes. Different constituent countries have different laws and law established in different cases. If, say, A v B defined a point of law in Scotland that was different in England, and the English case of C v D later brought the two in line, both are notable because within their legal system they made a change to the law. Ironholds (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No, by state, I mean U.S. state. Some states are divided into different judicial districts, each district having its own order of precedent. bd2412 T 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ooh. A debate for those more knowledgeable about the US system, methinks. I assume that any notable cases may have coverage in journals et al, and pass the GNG that way.
Perhaps what bd2412 really meant was state (law), as in a jurisdiction that has its own body of laws, regardless of whether it is considered a "sovereign state" for international law purposes. So, South Dakota, Scotland, and Swaziland would all be "states" by that definition, and we could have articles about legal issues in any of them. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If he means that then my earlier comment stands, which used Scotland as an example. Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What I mean is that I'm from Florida, which has five District Courts of Appeal, with the state divided between them. Judges in the First District (which covers the Florida Panhandle) want to know what previous First District cases say before you tell them about cases in other Districts. So, a case from the First District may only be repeating what the other four districts have long since decided, but may still be the first case from the First District to make that point. It may get written up nowhere but in First District briefs, and may be a case of no import on any larger scale, but it's what the First District judges want to see in that brief. bd2412 T 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd say "yes", they're notable. We really need to establish what makes cases "notable", but as a general rule I'd say that decisions by a court with binding precedent on lower courts = notable. Ironholds (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This could lead to absurd results. Consider Chateloin v. Flanigan's Enters., 423 So. 2d 1002 ((Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The text of the case, in its entirity reads:
PER CURIAM.
The owner of an alcoholic beverage establishment is not responsible for any injuries caused to a patron who was shot by another patron, when the injury occurred several miles from the premises and a considerable time after the patrons had left the premises. The injury was too remote as to time and place, even if the proprietor could be held responsible for the criminal activity of its patrons, which we do not here decide. See and compare Concrete Construction Inc. of Lake Worth v. Petterson, 216 So.2d 221 (Fla. 1968); Bell v. Jefferson, 414 So.2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Gottschalk v. Smith, 334 So.2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Therefore, the final summary judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
An article on this case would be longer than the decision itself! bd2412 T 16:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hah, that is a bit odd. I think a decision on this should be left to those more familiar with the (to me) bizarre and convoluted way you Americans do things :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I didn't mean the place where legal research is published, but rather the place where lawyers come to do caselaw research when writing their briefs/memos etc (rather than Wexis). I think Wikipedia could perform this role once it contained (bottom-up) briefs of important cases plus (top-down) hornbook-style articles on areas of law, both containing thorough citations to off-site primary sources. (Obviously, all caselaw will be digitized any day now; you'd only need a subscription service to access non-public sources, like hornbooks & journal articles, that were cited on wikipedia). And I think it could happen within a few years if we generate enough enthusiasm among students and practicing laywers. That's why there should be lobbying of professional associations that prescribe pro-bono work (e.g. bar associations/some law schools) to permit a small number of those hours to be achieved by editing Wikipedia.
  • More generally, I think that while Wikipedia is finally winning the struggle for legitimacy among the general public, among lawyers it is still at the beginning of that struggle, but this is only a temporary hurdle, which arises from the higher standards that our community holds for precise citation. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 19:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed. Our coverage is generally either incorrect, outdated or not detailed enough to be useful - we need to tackle that hand-in-hand with accurate citations, since one normally follows the other. Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

New judicial federalism

While beginning the new article Commonwealth v. Matos, I noticed that there was no article for new judicial federalism. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan wrote a few articles in his early career and a number of scholars and jurists took off on it. New judicial federalism is basically the trend of state courts to find interpretations of their own constitutions that differ from Federal case law even when state and federal constitutions have similar or identical wording. For instance, citizens of Pennsylvania enjoy greater privacy protections than those granted by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There is no Supremacy Clause violation and federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the decisions of state courts when there is "adequate and independent state grounds" for the decision. Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. 590 (1874). Justice O'Connor opined that state courts must plainly state that they are relying on state law otherwise federal courts are free to over rule their decisions. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). I don't know if it may have a different name here on wikipedia. Some may be interested in this topic, as well as the decisions of other states such as New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois that have greater Constitutional Rights than other parts of the U.S. Gx872op (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section of this article seems to describe a legal case, but the language could be made a bit more 'legal' I guess. It seems to ramble a bit and I figured the wikilawyers were a good bunch to ask :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Original responses (see below for summary style)
Out of the question. We're prohibited by Wikimedia policy from offering any legal or medical advice. Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
But this problem can easily be circumvented. The questions will have to be of the form, "In [jurisdiction X], what legal arguments can be made for AND against the theory that when a person does [Y], he may be liable for [Z]?" Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, particularly the large "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS". I also find your arguments faulty - a user who responds to a question requires a decent article on the topic. The idea that someone will ask a question and the respondent will build up a damn good law article before replying is illogical. "briefs", "legal memos" are both contrary to the legal disclaimer, and I'd like to think that we should focus on all areas of law, not just ones currently in vogue. Ironholds (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
He may require such an article, but he would be a fool to rely entirely on our service. Even a poor answer could direct him to relevant cases; and he might return to it upon completing his research and improve the articles there, based on his new knowledge. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
And if we don't have articles on these cases, or the articles are too brief to be useful? You're ignoring the major point - that "briefs", "legal memos" and so on are contrary to the legal disclaimer. Suggesting that wordplay is a way to circumvent this would be like suggesting that "so if I did have white fingertips, numbness and nerve dullness (not saying that I DO) what illness might I have?" could circumvent the disclaimer against giving medical advice. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Ironholds - it would work better the other way around, if we were to get lawyers who do their own legal research to then post (or expand) articles on the key cases and doctrines involved. On the other hand, that's just asking for bias to be introduced as lawyers will want the article to reflect the doctrinal positions that benefit their clients. bd2412 T 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Ironholds, I don't think your analogy is sound. We permit medical Wikipedia articles to state, "symptoms of this disease include white fingertips, numbness and nerve dullness;" we also permit Wikipedia articles on symptoms to aggregate the diseases they are caused by (e.g. this disease could be mentioned under "ischemia" subsection "appendages", "numbness", and "neve dullness") People who go to articles describing their symptoms haven't been given "medical advice." Analogously, when an article answers the question, "what legal arguments can be made for AND against proposal that ...", it is like asking, "what diseases have been known to cause all these symtpoms?" It is just aggregation of information. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Look, Ironholds, I totally appreciate the importance of what your saying -- that we must not violate the policy against providing legal advice. You are right to mention it as a caveat. Now that you've mentioned it, I would like to request your help in brainstorming whether there exist ways to provide this service without violating that rule. Here's what I have in mind -- suppose say someone says, "Help! My client is suing a major corporation for creating a canned tuna product that exploded onto their baby when the label said, Safe for babies. What's the law say about my case? -Joe" To me, a response in compliance with our policy would be as follows:
  • Hi joe, we cannot advise you on your case, but we can aggregate cases from the law of product liability, baby law, explosion law, fish law, and labeling law; it will be your responsibility to weigh the degree to which these cases are analogous to your own.
  • Caselaw in favor of plaintiff: In the case of P v. Q., a judge held that a fish exploding onto a chin was negligence when the fish had eaten mercury." Disclaimer: nothing in this section should be construed to imply that this case will be regarded analogous to yours by a legal tribunal.
  • Caselaw in favor of defandant: In the case of A v. Z., a judge distinguished P v. Q. in the case of a monkey, holding that monkeys were safer than fish. Disclaimer: nothing in this section should be construed to imply that this case will be regarded analogous to yours by a legal tribunal.
I don't see that as being a legitimate topic for an article; it is too narrow. And if we're not making these as articles, I don't see the point in making them at all. We have general articles on negligence and product liability, and can have more specific articles on these topics as applied by individual jurisdictions, but I see no future for an article on liability for exploding tuna cans labeled "safe for babies" in North Carolina - which would be necessary, because the law on such matters does vary from one jurisdiction to the next. bd2412 T 19:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


I'd like to propose a new Wikiproject [or new Wikimedia platform] wherein anyone (students, professors, clerks, litigators, etc) can post a legal research question (anonymized for client's benefit), and volunteers will collaboratively write a "brief" answering their question aggregate, organize, and summarize the caselaw that's relevant to the question. [modified in light of negative feedback. - Agradman ]
Here's what's in it for us:

  1. Wikipedia articles will improve, because volunteers will have to document their research in the relevant Wikipedia articles (i.e. whenever a brief cites to a case, it will have to cite to the Wikipedia article summarizing the case, which volunteers will therefore need to populate (perhaps we could catalyze this with a rule, "no external links - wikilinks only"))
  2. This system will direct the growth of Wikipedia legal articles towards topics that, by definition, are relevant to contemporary controversies provide editors with a list of cases that are relevant to contemporary controversies, thus informing those of us who hope Wikipedia will displace Wexis of where to direct our efforts first. [modified in light of negative feedback. - Agradman ]
    • (Thus, even though Wexis will continue to contain vastly more sources than Wikipedia has law articles, this won't be a disadvantage but a strength, because we'll omit the unimportant stuff.)
  3. We'll build up a repository of legal memos that are freely available to the world.

Getting this project off the ground will be easy: Once we build the framework and develop a few sample briefs, we'll get some coverage on legal blogs. Law school students will be our first large pool of volunteers, and solo practioners will be our first requestors. The pool of "moochers" (non-volunteer requestors) will at first quickly outstrip the number of volunteers, because posting a question here will be a zero-cost way to "cover your ass" (i.e., just in case some volunteer turns up a fabulous gem); but that will be a good thing, because it will get the Wikipedia brand out to people who never contemplated it for legal research before; these people will be the base for growing the pool of volunteers.
Thoughts? Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 18:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
Agradman: Here's what I have in mind -- someone creates a talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Legal topics related to/North Carolina/Labeling law/exploding tuna can labeled safe for babies, and says: "Help! My client is suing a major corporation for creating a canned tuna product that exploded onto their baby when the label said, Safe for babies. What's the law say about my case? -Joe" To me, a response in compliance with our policy would be as follows:

  • Hi joe, we cannot advise you on your case, but we can aggregate cases from the law of product liability, baby law, explosion law, fish law, and labeling law; it will be your responsibility to weigh the degree to which these cases are analogous to your own.
  • Caselaw in favor of plaintiff: In the case of P v. Q., a judge held that a fish exploding onto a chin was negligence when the fish had eaten mercury." Disclaimer: nothing in this section should be construed to imply that this case will be regarded analogous to yours by a legal tribunal.
  • Caselaw in favor of defandant: In the case of A v. Z., a judge distinguished P v. Q. in the case of a monkey, holding that monkeys were safer than fish. Disclaimer: nothing in this section should be construed to imply that this case will be regarded analogous to yours by a legal tribunal.

Responses (summary style by Agradman):
Ironholds: See Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, particularly the large "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS". We're prohibited by Wikimedia policy from offering any legal or medical advice.

  • Agradman: Perhaps we can circumvent this by presenting content in the form, "In [jurisdiction X], what legal arguments can be made for AND against the theory that when a person does [Y], he may be liable for [Z]?"
  • Ironholds: The label "Briefs", "legal memos", etc. is contrary to that rule.
  • Ironholds: Wordplay can't circumvent this disclaimer; that would be like suggesting that "so if I did have white fingertips, numbness and nerve dullness (not saying that I DO) what illness might I have?" could circumvent the disclaimer against giving medical advice. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agradman: Ironholds, I don't think your analogy is sound. We permit medical Wikipedia articles to state, "symptoms of this disease include white fingertips, numbness and nerve dullness;" we also permit Wikipedia articles on symptoms to aggregate the diseases they are caused by (e.g. this disease could be mentioned under "ischemia" subsection "appendages", "numbness", and "nerve dullness") People who go to articles describing their symptoms haven't been given "medical advice." Analogously, when an article answers the question, "what legal arguments can be made for AND against proposal that ...", it is like asking, "what diseases have been known to cause all these symtpoms?" It is just aggregation of information.
  • Agradman: Ironholds, I totally appreciate the importance of what your saying -- that we must not violate the policy against providing legal advice. You were right to provide that caveat. Now I would like to use this page to brainstorm whether there exist ways to provide this service without violating that rule.
  • Agradman: I have modified modified my proposal to reflect your concerns.

Ironholds: A user who asks a question requires a decent article on the topic. The idea that the respondent will build up a damn good law article before replying is illogical.

  • Agradman: He may require such an article, but he would be a fool to rely entirely on our service.
  • Ironholds: And if we don't have articles on these cases, or the articles are too brief to be useful?
  • Agradman: Even a poor answer could direct him to relevant cases; and he might return to it upon completing his research and improve the articles there, based on his new knowledge.
  • bd2412: I'd have to agree with Ironholds - it would work better the other way around, if we were to get lawyers who do their own legal research to then post (or expand) articles on the key cases and doctrines involved (although, that's just asking for bias to be introduced as lawyers will want the article to reflect the doctrinal positions that benefit their clients.)
  • Agradman Has the writing of biased caselaw articles for the purpose of influencing future legal cases ever been a problem? Has it even happened ONCE? Even if I wanted to attempt such a thing (misrepresent the content of a case in its Wikipedia article), I wouldn't know how to do it. All claims made in caselaw articles need to cite to the text of the original case, and such citation is easy to do; these sorts of manipulations will be hard to get away with. Furthermore, Wikipedia has a robust and proven peer review system.

Ironholds: I'd like to think that we should focus on all areas of law, not just ones currently in vogue.

  • Agradman: I have modified modified my proposal to reflect your concerns.

bd2412: I don't see that as being a legitimate topic for an article; it is too narrow.

  • bd2412: If we're not making these as articles, I don't see the point in making them at all.
  • Agradman: There is value in having this page, because it will show up in the "what links here" section of A v. Z and P v. Q.; thus, people interested in the law of exploding tuna cans, or the law of labeling, will use these memos to direct them to related cases.
  • Agradman: Furthermore, all the points I made in my original proposal apply here: Wikipedians will need to research the relevant caselaw in order to answer the question, and they should be creating articles on that caselaw when doing so.
  • Do not support - I think the above comments overstate the scope of "giving legal advice", but the original proposal is clearly legal advice under the standards of every jurisdiction in the U.S., and likely elsewhere. Even if there was no wikipedia policy on point (and I think the wikipedia policy is not more onerous than the legal standard) it's illegal (and for law students and lawyers, a violation of professional ethics). More circumspect proposals for case briefs and summaries will have a much better chance of succeeding. Shadowjams (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This is good feedback. I would like to try to modify my proposal to accommodate your critiques.
  • Let me give some background on what motivated this proposal. Suppose you were assigned to determine (as I was) whether the Sherman Antitrust Act preempts a particular agreement among several states. Your Wexis research trail takes you through dozens of cases that performed this research for another purpose, and thence into the Congressional record. As a good Wikipedian, you should eventually put what you learned at Sherman Antitrust Act, and also describe the relevant cases at their corresponding articles.
  • This sort of research would not be unethical to delegate to a stranger, and there are in fact Wikipedians out there who would be eager to do it for you; they would answer your question at Sherman Antitrust Act#Congressional intent regarding preemption of state agreements, with wikilinks to the individual case articles that cite the congressional record, as well as footnotes to the congressional record itself.
  • The challenge I'm looking to surmount is, How do I get the two of you in touch with each other? Currently, if you wanted to ask someone to do this research for you, you'd have to put that request at Wikipedia_talk:Sherman Antitrust Act, but he'll never find it there. I'm proposing a central page where you can make this request.
  • What I've said until now seems pretty uncontroversial. My question is, "How far can it go?" Assuming that my "baby wounded by exploding can of tuna" example is off-limits, but my "Original intent of Sherman Antitrust Act" example is OK, is it possible to characterize the permissible kinds of legal research that could be performed communally, such we could create a legal-research-requests page that doesn't violate these sensibilities? Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 22:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
From my point of view, forget it. When I do legal research it's because either (a) I have a personal interest in the topic, or (b) I'm getting paid to do it. A lot. I'd bet most people who are qualified to do the sort of research to which you allude are in the same boat. Of course, where I am called upon to research a topic extensively, and for multiple clients, the inevitable generic overview usually ends up in something like Concurrent use registration. bd2412 T 06:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This type of proposal would also be a problem with the whole rule about no original research. If you are asking Wikipedians to take a variety of case law and synthesize the material or draw conclusions using their personal opinion, that is a violation. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope, because it doesn't take place in the mainspace and is therefore fine. What he's suggesting is essentially little different from the Reference Desk. Ironholds (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that your idea is a good one (and I have had similar ones in the past). The problem is, I think that Wikipedia is not really the place for it. What someone needs to do is set up a separate legal website that helps lawyers collaborate on sharing legal information. Some of this information could theorhetically make it into an encyclopedia (like what are the limits of the first amendment) but other things would not (like what are the specifics of the garnishment law in Virginia). Remember (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am hesitant about giving absolutes concerning what goes into an encyclopedia. There is no harm in an article about Virginia garnishment law. I would agree that it would not be appropriate to post somewhere on wikipedia the details of a particular fact pattern with the question as to whether a Virginia garnishment principle should or should not apply. The policy concerning no original research and synthesis, I think, already address this issue, notwithstanding the Model Rules of each jurisdiction. As for a request page for additional research, we have it right here. For instance, whenever I muster the time to fully complete Commonwealth v. Matos, I might request here of the zealous law student, "What other state jurisdictions afford greater privacy protections than those granted by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?" and we have the beginning of a few case briefs linked together on a similar legal topic from multiple jurisdictions, maybe even a new wikipedia category. We may note that Wexis doesn't provide this info without a little digging and the typical professional research doesn't dig so deeply, but passes it onto the law student intern. The law student intern benefits because they now have a topic for their 25 page independent study/ research paper and the professional benefits by noticing the highly relevant case in the other jurisdiction with the similar Constitutional provision for appeal purposes. The thing is that these law student researchers have access to better info than the plethora of laypersons who write legal discourses in various articles. For instance, Inchoate offense has a misstatement in the lead sentence. We may recall from our bar review lectures that for the inchoate offense of attempt mere preparation is not enough. Also, nowhere in the article are the words "substantial step." My point is that if a law student wants to do a bunch of research that will either correct or create accurate info on a legal topic, it would be better to encourage it, but perhaps direct it, as they might suggest, to the principles rather than the application. Gx872op (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that Virginia garnishment law would present enough material to make a complete article, but I've written Collection of judgments in Virginia, with a substantial section on garnishment (the rest needs to be expanded). bd2412 T 08:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL. lovely work. Good proof of concept. I suppose the next step would be to create a "collection of judgments in the United States" article (which I'll help with over the weekend). I think that whenever we're dealing with a multistate U.S. common law topic, there should be a "... in the United States" page that contains links to the fifty states, similarly to how Senate and Judicial Review do this for various countries. (The same would apply to articles on federal statutes, which should have links for each of the federal circuits.) Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 14:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Humbler version

You've convinced me that this proposal won't work. A more realistic version (in light of Ironholds's comment) would work a litte like Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities -- but rather than people posting questions (which will tend to expand Wikipedia in relatively small and trivial chunks), they should post a list of sources and say, "Please assimilate content related to subtopic Q into article Z." (Call the page Wikipedia:directed research? Perhaps accessible from Wikipedia:reference desk, such that you go to the former if you have a source that contains the answer, but you want to have it explained better.)

So, for example: suppose you're researching the application Q of Federal Statute Z in the Second Circuit. You've gathered hyperlinks to five Supreme Court cases, two dozen Appellate cases, and five sources on Google Books and Google Scholar. You'd go to this special page, list the hyperlinks and say, "Please assimilate the information from these sources into the article on Federal Statute Z, under the subheading "application Q"." I, for one, would be willing to "extract" some quality citations from some of these sources. Furthermore, when the task is framed this way, the expansion of certain generic legal topics could be delegated to non-lawyers, since we're just asking them to make a Wikipedia-compliant paraphrase of an accurate source.

The only caveat is that contributors will have to self-select for having the patience and discipline to gain some understanding the subtopic they're writing about before they begin writing. While I won't pretend that a non-lawyer can achieve a perfect understanding of legal content on a first read, I do think he could understand the stuff well enough to make a first effort at integration into an article. And all his work will have citations to websites, so it could be easily verified; and even if it's sloppy, the first efforts will make it much easier for a specialist to revise the text to make it compliant. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What you're essentially suggesting is that law students, lawyers, whatever can come up and go "here's a list of shit. Do my bitchwork for me and write an article on it, will you?". Now, if they think an article can be assembled out of that it means that they understand how it all links together - which means two things. One, any article we write is of no use whatsoever to them, which makes it unlikely that they'll take the time to give us a note saying "write an article on this" (why would they? For us to do something on it is of no use or help to them) and two, they know enough that they could write the article themselves if they chose. Your argument was that it will help attract work on legal articles by getting more law students/lawyers involved - they're not getting involved under this proposal, they're taking the time to tell us to write an article. Requested Articles is thataway, thanks. Ironholds (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1. When you say "here's a list of my shit," you make it sound as though Wikipedia has ever concerned itself with the motives of its consumers. When you call it "bitchwork," you make it sound as though editors should feel demeaned to be doing research that will be useful to someone other than themselves. Do you feel this way about Wikipedia:Reference desk too?
2. I think your resentment at people "taking the time to tell us to write an article" is unfair to my point that it will get people involved in Wikipedia. Wikipedia will improve concurrently as it 1) adds more content and b) becomes viewed as a place you can go to learn what you need to know. There are tons of people who never begin their research on a topic on Wikipedia. If they feel like Wikipedia is conforming its content to their needs, they may get in the habit. The process of converting this people into editors comes later.
3. It's hyperbole to say that any article we write is of no use whatsoever to them. It will be of some use to them, which is why they will take the five seconds to do it. It will be of immense use to the world, which is why Wikipedians will take the time to do the job well. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 18:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
What I mean by 3 is that because it's of little or no use to them (your proposal makes the assumption that they have the information anyway and we'd just be collating it for the use of others) they're unlikely to inform us. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
4. This isn't like "requested articles" -- there will already be an article, with tons of "External links" at the bottom, and the request is that people assimilate specific content out of these external links.
5. "and two, they know enough that they could write the article themselves if they chose". Often people choose not to. Perhaps they're new to wikipedia, or busy, or lazy, or selfish. The world will work more efficiently when they can delegate some of their needs to the large number of people who, at any given moment, are neither new to wikipedia nor busy nor lazy nor selfish. Suckers like me... Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 18:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
6. maybe they're busy, or lazy, or selfish yes. But that kind of undermines your point about law students that (as I understood it) implies such people would be queuing up to volunteer. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
In fairness, you are correct. The near-term effect of this policy will to attract a lot of lazy people with a lot of questions they could be answering on their own, and the number of questions will steeply overwhelm the editors -- which undermines my argument that law students would be queuing up to volunteer. (Essentially, my proposal is a page where people can say, "Hey! Page X has a long list of external links -- will someone please move them into References?") My rebuttal is imperfect -- I'm saying that the questioners will gradually convert into editors as they get into the habit of relying on the site. When I say that I'm fairly confident (as a rising 3L) that law students have the enthusiasm to be doing this work, it is an unrelated point. But, again: I'm starting a "CLS wikipedia editors" club whose mission will be "to make Wexis obsolete before our employers ever call upon us to use it, and the "Wikipedia:directed research/law" would be our nesting site ... Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 19:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I've evangelized plenty to law students about writing for Wikipedia, but there's a not-so-fine line between populating the encyclopedia with general purpose articles which will provide a comprehensive overview of the law, and doing somebody else's job of locating persuasive authority to persuade a particular court of a particular position. Let us be generalists, and focus first on getting what's covered in the textbooks and in the classes in here. bd2412 T 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've paraphrased this proposal (as "a special page somewhere between "Reference_desk" and "Requested_Articles"") at the village pump, since it really applies to all specialties. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 23:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Prior patent at Walkman

An IP editor has been repeatedly trying to insert at the Walkman page a British "portable music player" patent filed prior to the introduction of Sony's Walkman. Only recently has the patent under discussion been dug up via espacenet. Now that we can see it, the question is: is this patent notable enough to merit a mention in the article itself? Discussion and links to the patent at Talk:Walkman#Unsourced statements in Patent Controversy. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Using the "hidden" template to incorporate case text into law articles

I've put a proposal about this [2]. Please participate. Thanks. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 01:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

False redirect

Testimonial evidence redirects to Anecdotal evidence. I was trying to see if this was a viable link for the brand new SCOTUS case and article Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009). I was a bit concerned by what the article had to say about hearsay, but I have greater concern for the redirect given what the Supreme Court defined as testimonial evidence in the yet unfinished article Davis v. Washington (2006). I am not sure how to eliminate a redirect, help would be appreciated. Gx872op (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Either delete the redirecting text from the page itself, or delete and replace it with something more appropriate. Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Law firms using Wikipedia as marketing tool

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies#Law_firms_using_Wikipedia_as_marketing_tool.Skookum1 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Help needed on Basi-Virk case/articles

Recent developments in what has been called "the most important political scandal in Canada" have been overflowing lately; while User;Moonbug has bravely said she will undertake to try and bring things up to date, there are issues with a possible/probable need to split the article; the legal complexities of the case are as complex as the politics surrounding it; for anyone who might have the time and inclination to research it and take it on, please see Talk:BC_Legislature_Raids#heaving_a_sigh_of_omg.Skookum1 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Law firm articles

Are law firm articles within the scope of this project? --KenWalker | Talk 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe they would be, yes - an overlap with Wikiproject:Companies, I assume. Ironholds (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

case management

I am still looking for legal help with the term case management as I am about to create a disambigious page. I am addressing the health perspectives, but the current case management page contains some legal content and should be moved to legal case management as per the discussion here. page should be here case management (disambiguation) soon Earlypsychosis (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The case management legal term seems to refer specifically to control over mediation or a particular form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Perhaps stick it in that page? Ironholds (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No, "case management" decidedly does not refer to only ADR-type cases, it is a term extensively used by lawyers to mean that process by which we manage our cases, the data generated by them, and the decision processes we use when handling matters, whether transactional or those in litigation. To illustrate, there are software platforms designed for case management, e.g. Case Manager®, Abacus AttorneyTM, etc.. Sctechlaw (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Some areas of concern within the scope of legal "case management": matter data, jurisdiction data, client data, party data, opposing counsel data, research, analysis, calendar, tasks, contacts, hours, costs, journal, document flow, briefs, evidence, damages assessment, witnesses, experts, settlement negotiations, prior claims, liens, etc.. Sctechlaw (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The pages Legal matter management and legal case management should be merged into a single article more appropriately titled "Case management (legal)" Sctechlaw (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_9&oldid=1142660717"