Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
The article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document).
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The article Conflict of property laws has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- The article is ultimately a piece of original research.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Civil recognition of Jewish divorce for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil recognition of Jewish divorce until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Concern, reason or rationale: It is an original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document). 212.50.182.151 (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World
I've created the new article about the book Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, which discusses the subject of targeted killing.
Further suggestions for research and additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page, at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World.
Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
COTPA No Smoking sign 1.jpg
image:COTPA No Smoking sign 1.jpg has been nominated for deletion; does anyone know what kind of license this legally mandated signage carries? -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Question about title of article Loss and damage
There is apparently a movement or something around the subject of "loss and damage" as being specifically related to climate change, per the UN Loss and Damage in Vulnerable Countries Initiative and so forth ([1], [2] etc. being top google hits for "loss and damage"), hence the article on this is called just Loss and damage. But is this also a valid separate concept in civil law, or just two words that mean what they say? If you want to see some non-lawyers thrashing around in ignorance about this, see the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Menominee Tribe v. United States is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Menominee Tribe v. United States/archive3. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 15:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Could use a hand at Rick Paul
Hi WikiProject Law members. An article on lawyer Rick Paul was recently created. I don't know anything about the legal profession, but it doesn't seem to me that the subject as currently presented meets the general notability guideline, mostly due to lack of independent coverage. Was hoping to get some more experienced eyes on the article. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Help with Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
Hello, could you look at Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States, where some facts about U.S. governance are being seriously misstated? This article addresses an issue which has become of keen political interest not only in the USA but internationally. Unfortunately, over time some editors have been overrating the significance of some fast changing developments in certain U.S. states, and in the process misrepresenting the law. The legally false claims are, of course, unsourced -- i.e., the publications cited don't actually contain the statements they are alleged to contain (the publications are just news media reports of the issuance of marriage licenses or of court rulings). At the moment, these unfortunate edits are especially made in regard to New Mexico. One bad insertion is the claim that the state of New Mexico delegates to the counties the power to regulate marriage. It would be helpful to have fresh contributors who understand equal protection, who understand the assignment of powers between municipalities, counties, and states. These certain editors are interpreting the scattered issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples and a couple of district court rulings as the state having recognized/legalized same sex marriage, despite the fact that the state supreme court to date has not decided the issue (it heard arguments just yesterday, October 23). It would also be good if you would keep an eye on Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Mexico. So far, these terrible distortions of legal reality have not been inserted into this article, but they could yet be. False edits are also being made to a templated map used to illustrate Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States. To view the footnotes to the map, look up the map there. However, to be able to edit these footnotes, instead of going directly to the file, we seem to need to go to [3], which you can navigate to also by clicking on the linked capital 'E' at the map box's lower right corner. Thank you. Hurmata (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear legal experts: The above article, which has been submitted for review at Afc, may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's been accepted. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
30 day archive timeout === lack of replies
We need to change the 30 day thread timeout. Archives are immutable, hence for the most part all threads are being deleted/made write-only after 30 days. And very few threads are being replied to in time before they are deleted.
That's stupid. By the time I get around to reading this WikiProject, these threads are archived and hence deleted/write-protected/non-usable. Is there a reason why threads are archived so quickly on such difficult subject?
I propose we extend it to at least 60 days, and when the sky doesn't fall, we consider increasing the thread reply timeout even higher. Int21h (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I should note, with subjects as exciting as this, progress is slow. I have only created a couple tiny articles since the last thread was deleted. I do not have time to make those edits and monitor this page before the timeout goes off. That means editors may take years to happen upon the conversations going on here. They should not be locked out of the conversation because they didn't check this page every 30 days. Int21h (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be happy if we just turned off MiszaBot II here completely. I think in many cases it is actively harmful, and this is one of those cases. No objection to 60 or 90 days, either. I also DNAU'd this thread. Though, I question the claim that archives are immutable -- can we not restore a thread from an Archive (either duplicating it from the Archive, or destructively cutting it out of the Archive when it is moved back here)? I agree it's a huge pain, though. jhawkinson (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I asked what the deal was with pulling threads out of the archives a long time ago, when trying to get some clarification. I think someone gave an example or two of someone doing it, but for the most part no one had ever done it. I've never done it. I've never seen it done (the example threads had of course been re-archived.) But the opinion, as I remember, was that you shouldn't just keep a discussion going inside the archive, you're supposed to bring it out. But again, no one does that. I think they used to even have "this is archived, do not edit" plastered all over them.
- But yeah, for this WikiProject, the timeout should be a while. Not quite sure how long, but longer. I mean, if this page gets really big or a thread is really big some can do it manually, but the automatic 30 days
inis just too quick. I'm not sure how manageable "off" would be though. Who's going to be the one who archives? When is too big or too long?
- But yeah, for this WikiProject, the timeout should be a while. Not quite sure how long, but longer. I mean, if this page gets really big or a thread is really big some can do it manually, but the automatic 30 days
- I say we start inching up and see what the sweet spot is. Int21h (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have increased it to 90 days for now. We shall see if the sky falls. Int21h (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chiming in with a ditto to jhawkinson. I suggest taking it out entirely and seeing how long it takes for it to get annoying and someone to archive it (hopefully we can be bold). II | (t - c) 02:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
AfC submission
Could you have a look at this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Fuck featured article candidate discussion
Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing about the lead to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. Please help form a consensus at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal for lead.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Created Category:Targeted killing
I've gone ahead and created Category:Targeted killing, a category to encompass articles related to the topic of Targeted killing.
Suggestions for additional articles to add into the category would be appreciated, feel free to add them yourself or suggest them at Category talk:Targeted killing.
Cheers,
— Cirt (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe Peer Review
This article has been submitted for a peer review in preparation for a run at Featured Article. Any assistance would be appreciated. GregJackP Boomer! 04:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Beck v. Eiland-Hall for Peer Review
I've placed the article up for Peer Review.
Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Beck v. Eiland-Hall/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Referendum in Croatia
I invite all interested editors to contribute in article Croatian constitutional referendum, 2013.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Created category for Streisand effect
I've gone ahead and created the category for Category:Streisand effect.
Please feel free to populate it with related articles.
Discussion is welcome at Category talk:Streisand effect.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Specialist in Copyright Law?
Can someone who is a specialist in copyright law please get back to me either by my talk page or replying here because I would like some advice on a matter in which i'm out of my depth. --Olowe2011 (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. You didn't say which jurisdiction. I'm a copyright specialist but based in London (England) and I'm guessing you are a US lawyer and so my expertise is going to be less than useful. Feel free to drop me an email - if you google my name you should be able to find it. Francis Davey (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
A second request to move this article from United States v. Microsoft Corp. has been opened. A previous move request was closed 45 days ago with the move to the current title. Interested editors may weigh in at Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.#Requested move 2. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 06:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this case notable per WP:notability (or Wikipedia:Notability (events) if a case is also an event)? --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- According to the article, this is the leading decision in an important area; however, that kind of assertion needs a third-party source, which is presently missing from the article. bd2412 T 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty of secondary sources available via a Google search. It would appear to be notable. BTW, court cases are not normally evaluated as an event. GregJackP Boomer! 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive1. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Portal:Freedom of speech - for peer review
I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Guarantee#Notability/separate article
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Guarantee#Notability/separate article. -- Trevj (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48 -- Trevj (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The requested move has been relisted. Join in discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Requesting info refs and contribs
Hi,
Seasons Greetings.We are looking for more info, refs, and contribs about concepts; namely 'legal consciousness',l'egal mobilization' and 'legal socialization' in article Legal_awareness#Related_concepts
Thank you
Mahitgar (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
DYK nomination help
Can someone take a look at the DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation? I feel like the article relies too much on primary sources -- the judge's opinion, and a series of blog posts, and posts on law firm web sites giving their opinions. Are these the sort of sources normally relied on for law articles? Should we be relying on secondary sources to interpret the meaning and influence of court findings? Why hasn't the legal press covered this case? And if they haven't, does it fail notability? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- I see the DYK nomination was already rejected, but I'll opine anyway because the article's still out there...
For a district court decision, we would require reliable secondary source coverage at the outset demonstrating that either the lawsuit as a whole is notable or the resulting judicial opinion itself, because the vast majority of those aren't notable. The reliance on the judge's opinion to write the article is not necessarily problematic, provided our article is strictly descriptive and not venturing into WP:OR interpretation, though it's far more difficult for a lay reader to sift through legal materials at the trial court level because even a final, written opinion will lack the focus of an appellate opinion on what is significant and not merely routine. And it depends on the blogs as far as whether those are reliable is, for example) and/or should count towards satisfying WP:GNG. The one hosted by Forbes would seem to be. Even with some secondary source coverage, however, it still might only be worth mentioning in the Zappos article. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)