Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Comp. Gen.

I was going to add "Comp. Gen." to the List of legal abbreviations, but I want to make sure I know the correct definition(s) of the abbreviation first. Here's what I know:

  • Bluebook (20th ed.) says, "Government Accountability Office (GAO) Bid Protest Decisions: Cite to Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States (Comp. Gen.), if therein." And gives this example:

Astrophysics Research Corp., 66 Comp. Gen. 211 (1987).

  • If you search for "Comp. Gen." on the Bluebook (20th ed.) website, you will see this result:

Decisions of the Comptroller General 1921-1994 Comp. Gen.

which suggests the Decisions ceased publication as of the 1994 decisions.

Comp. Gen. – Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States (selected). Ex: 61 Comp. Gen. 428 (1982). [bound volumes of selected decisions, 1921-94]]

  • Thus, going with the Bluebook instructions, particularly the phrase "if therein", one might assume there should not be any "Comp. Gen." citations after 1995.
  • But then Bluebook gives this example:

Where a decision resolves multiple bid protests, each of which has its own docket number, indicate this by inserting “et al.” after the docket number.
Midland Supply, Inc., B-298720 et al., 2007 CPD ¶ 2 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 29, 2006).

  • And I found at least two reference sources (Abbreviation.com and Dictionary.com [Random House Dictionary]) that define "Comp. Gen." as "Comptroller General of the United States."
  • So it seems that "Comp. Gen." can refer to the publication, Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States, in which case the citation should have a volume number preceding "Comp. Gen." and a page number afterwards. Or "Comp. Gen." can refer to the government official, "Comptroller General of the United States", in which case there are no volume or page numbers.

Is that correct? Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Okay, you're referring to Table 1.2, and what's in my copy of the 20th edition at page 245. The first example is pretty straightforward: Astrophysics Research Corp. 66 Comp. Gen. 211 (1987) In this example, "Comp. Gen." does mean Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States. The second and third set of examples is a little more annoying: Def. Sys. Group, B-240295, 1990 WL 293536 (Comp. Gen. Nov. 6, 1990) To explain this example, we need to refer back to Rule 14.3, specifically Rule 14.3.3, which states: "If the name of the issuing agency is not apparent from the name of the source, include the name of the agency abbreviated according to Rule 15.1(d) in the parenthetical containing the date", and gives this example: Gen. Dynamics Corp., 50 Fed. Reg. 45,949 (U.S. Dep't of Labor Nov. 5, 1985). Rule 15.1(d) provides the rules for abbreviating the names of institutional authors, specifically referring us to Table 6 and Table 10. Table 6 is case names and institutional author words, whereas Table 10 is geographical place name abbreviations.
    Now here's the fun part: The example in Table 1.2 that is giving you trouble? Bluebook seems to break its own rule. In Table 6, there is no entry for "Comptroller", though we can sometimes invent our own abbreviations where they're useful, and (in particular) where we follow Rule 15.1(d)'s command only to abbreviate where it would be unambiguous. However, in Table 6, "Comp." is already an abbreviation for "Compensation". I checked the 19th Edition as well, and Table 6 is the same for "Compensation" = "Comp.". That said, they still use "Comp. Gen." in that Table 1.2 example.
    So, what's the answer? I don't really know. That said, I bet if you put "Comp. Gen." in a citation like Table 1.2 suggests, the reader would understand it as referring to the Comptroller General. But if I were editing a law review article and came across that I'd find any way possible to cite it differently. If it weren't for those last three examples in Table 1.2, I'd have abbreviated it "Comptroller Gen.", even though the reporter of decisions is abbreviated "Comp. Gen." I'm sure there are some law review editors who might argue with me, but I expect it's a really damn unusual case.
    Also in response to your confusion about whether there were any decisions reported in Comp. Gen. after 1995, it looks like the GAO discontinued it after Volume 74. It doesn't look like they had a large number of published decisions, and I'm guessing at that time one of the looseleaf services was doing it a lot more efficiently. For some federal legal references, like the U.S. Code, it can take years for the official copy to come out, whereas the unofficial versions (U.S.C.A. and U.S.C.S.) are pretty rapidly updated, and the looseleaf services (when those were in vogue) could conceivably be updated within a week of the passage of a new law. Anyway, hope that helps. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that helps a ton! Thank you so much. I like your use of "Comptroller Gen." as it is consistent with the general rule to avoid ambiguity. I learned a lot reading your reply - much appreciated.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I sent an email to the Bluebook editors pointing out the confusion and referencing this discussion. Perhaps they could add a Blue Tip or an Update.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help. The Bluebook has some rules and tables that are desperately in need of an update, or are simply not followed in practice. The foreign law stuff is particularly rough. Very few law journals appears to put translated titles of works, for instance. The Table 2 entries are often inconsistent with each other, with actual practice, and with the general rule for foreign law sources, particularly for Latin American countries. The Mexico one in the 20th edition was completely rewritten, and the parts on secondary sources are so utterly inconsistent with standard Bluebook practice that I pray it's only used as a guide to reading citations in Mexican scholarship. A lot of the state law guidance in Table 1 needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as well, even when it comes to something so ubiquitous as case citations. In Texas, for instance, the date parenthetical for an appellate court case citation must include information about the status of any subsequent appeals, even where leave to appeal was denied, because the nature of the denial affects the stare decisis impact of the case. Bluebook doesn't tell you about any of that, and consequently most law journal articles from outside Texas that aren't specifically about Texas will omit them. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Their complacency might (finally) cause major law reviews to switch to another citation guide. Judge Posner would be vindicated. ;-)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about investigation details in New York Life article

Hi! I'm wondering if WikiProject Law editors might be interested in reviewing this New Jersey investigation section at New York Life Insurance Company. A brief history of the issue: The article previously contained a Criticism and controversy section that was poorly sourced, verged on original research, and consisted of seemingly not notable events. Following this edit request asking for editors to review and look at removing the section, an editor deleted much of the material, but retained and expanded upon details in the section about an investigation undertaken by the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance, supported by that organization's own report.

I'm reaching out here since I'm curious what editors experienced in reviewing legal issues in Wikipedia articles would think of this section and using a government organization's report to support a section like this. My contact at New York Life noted that the issue was not a landmark one in NYL's long history, but of course it's more to the point how Wikipedia's guidelines and community views this information. Does the level of detail seem reasonable? I appreciate any insight.

Please note that I am here on behalf of New York Life as part of my work with Beutler Ink. Because of this conflict of interest, I will not direct edit the article. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD: Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee

The above article is within the scope of this project and has been nominated for deletion; interested editors may wish to see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Intersectionality article - Will you take a look?

I just added a POV tag ("The neutrality of this article is disputed.") to Intersectionality. I suggested on the article's Talk page, under Neutral point of view?, that we work on integrating critiques of this theory into the body of the article. The goal is balance, fairness, and objectivity. Please take a look to see if you might be able to help. [Note: I want to attract editors who are committed to civility, fairness, and a scholarly approach, regardless of political ideology. The objective is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.] Thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice on William T. Reid article

A while ago I asked for the community advice on Reid Collins & Tsai article and got very exact and helpful feedback (especially from User:7&6=thirteen, Mendaliv and BD2412). I ask the community to check William T. Reid article. This is a COI contribution (properly stated). I believe the person is notable. Since this is my second law-related contribution, I would appreciate an expert point of view on the content of the article. Also this was the first time that I used cite court template for references and I am not sure that I did it 100% correct. Please suggest what could/should be improved. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

United Kingdom Supreme Court cases task force

What is the best way to go about setting up a task force to create an article on the cases which have been before the Supreme court of the United Kingdom? The fact they are before the court shows the cases notability, and they should all have an individual article. Please can a task force for this be established. I am more than happy to take part. Sport and politics (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States

I have started Draft:Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, a fascinating topic brought to my attention by a recent aborted DYK hook falsely stating that an article subject had appeared as an expert witness before the U.S. Supreme Court. An article on the actual (rare) instances of individuals appearing as witnesses before the Court will be much more worthy of appearing as a DYK topic. bd2412 T 20:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I can help with this, once I am back in my office after new year's. My recollection is that there may have been two or three trials in the 1790s, but the documentation is incomplete. Since then there have been no trials before the Court, as hearings where necessary are held before a special master instead. There is a chapter on this in Stern & Grossman, I believe. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - I will defer to your substantial expertise. bd2412 T 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Protip: The hornbooks you want to look for as refs are going to have "federal courts" in the title; that phrase is the stock term all the law schools seem to use for their courses on federal court jurisdictional matters, and not coincidentially, all the casebooks and supplements used in teaching those courses have that phrase in their titles. I will say, I sincerely doubt you will find any modern cases of witness testimony being taken before the Supreme Court. In modern practice, the evidence gathering and similar functions are (as far as I know) always delegated to a "special master", who is roughly similar to a magistrate judge and delivers a report to the Supreme Court. There probably was a time in the 19th century when witness testimony might be given in open court. A related neat topic would be the appellate jurisdiction of the court (as opposed to writs of certiorari), which as far as I can tell only rarely exists in appeals from three-judge district court panels, and sometimes from final judgments of state supreme courts (but appeal is far more often granted via certiorari in those cases as far as I know). This is a fascinating topic area that you could write extensively about just from some hornbooks, Moore's Federal Practice, and a few other specialized reference works. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, mandatory appellate jurisdiction - cases the Court can not refuse to consider. We should also have an article on that topic. bd2412 T 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

See also Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Copying over the relevant material for now. I would be curious to know what sort of discussion led the framers of the Constitution to the specific operative language ultimately used. bd2412 T 20:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I can send you some links next week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to hit my go-to academic law library next week when it reopens as well and see about getting some scans. Honestly this is something you could probably do a series of FAs on with a handful of reference sources. Moore's Federal Practice, Wright's Federal Practice and Procedure, the typical federal courts hornbooks, plus Am Jur 2d and CJS. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I have added some content and moved the article to mainspace (Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States), but there is still great potential for expansion. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Article: Seeking Input

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm currently working on an article for a college course I'm currently taking. I was hoping to find some people to take a look and help me improve my article. It is currently rated as a "C" but I didn't receive any specific feedback as to why it got the rating it did, so I would love some more input from anyone within this community. Thank you! Kimmecca (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Brad Smith (American lawyer)

Microsoft is in the news a lot lat few days mostly represented by its CLO Brad Smith, about whom we have a brand new article. The article at the moment seems very positive and one sided and reads a bit like autobiography. I think it would be good if more people read it and improved on it. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Very elaborate article published from a new account, declared paid editing... -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Militia Act of 1903#Snopes is NOT a material source for an internet meme that BillMckern doesn't cite to begin with, to validate his section.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Militia Act of 1903#Snopes is NOT a material source for an internet meme that BillMckern doesn't cite to begin with, to validate his section. . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Various firearm articles added to this project

I'm looking for comments on the recent addition of Handgun and Gun violence in the United States to this project. Respective discussions at Talk:Handgun#Contested projects and Talk:Gun violence in the United States#Contested projects. Meters (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussions consolidated at Talk:Gun violence in the United States#Contested projects Meters (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

National Judicial College

Just a notice that I moved National Judicial College from draft to article space. While it is not directly related to this WikiProject, it is close enough that I will mention it for anybody who might want to improve it. Safiel (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Two requested moves at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1875 have just been relisted. Please come and add your choice and rationale to the debates.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

420 Collaboration

The 420 Collaboration to create and improve cannabis-related content runs through the month of April. WikiProject members are invited to participate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

NOAA Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs (CRSRA) / National and Commercial Space Program Act

[1][2][3] Do we have an article on the law and/or the office? [4][5] -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

United States law

There needs to be a subproject on United States law (WP:USLAW), specifically, because its a topic of depth and needs work, and because its a separate approach from the idea of an ethnic-English common law. -Inowen (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There's currently WP:WikiProject United States Public Policy, WP:WikiProject US State Legislatures, WP:WikiProject United States Government; so a WP:WikiProject United States law and WP:WikiProject United States politics would seem to be in order -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Difference between "works" and "literature"?

I've come across Category:Works about copyright law and its subcategory Category:Copyright law literature and I'm wondering what the distinction between them is. Maybe that "literature" is academic publications and "works" is more general non-fiction? I'm not sure, so if someone knows if there's a policy regarding these terms or has a good description, those categories could use descriptions of some sort. lethargilistic (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Interim United States Attorneys, etc. categories? Expiration of authority?

It seems like Wikipedia and Wikiproject Law might want to take a look at how we handle Interim United States Attorneys. This is particularly relevant as those who were appointed on Jan. 3 of this year, including Geoffrey Berman for SDNY, expire on May 3 (or so I understand). It might be worth creating a category and putting the relevant folks in the category, as well as revising their pages to make clear the expiration of their interim authority. And perhaps creating Interim United States Attorney. On the other hand, there's no Category:Acting United States Attorney either. And Berman's article isn't tagged for WP Law. So it seems like there's a lot that could be done here. I'm not sure which of the above are actually worth doing, if any, or if there are other more relevant things. Thoughts? jhawkinson (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Gun politics task force

Hello! I thought you might be interested in joining the Gun Politics Task Force. We work on coordinating, expanding and improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics broadly related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page. Thank You!

This may be of interest to members of this project. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to Reference desk Guidelines

Hi legal eagles. I have just started a new thread in the hope of repairing a problem I have discovered in the guidelines accompanying the Reference desks. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Proposed change to Reference desk guidelines.

After reading the first substantial response to my proposal I am disheartened to realise there isn’t much understanding out there in the field of legal basics. I would love it if a few pairs of legal eyes would have a look at my thread and make a comment. Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 14:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done

Scope issue

Hey, all. As seen here and here, NadirAli feels that the WP:LAW tag shouldn't be placed on the Child sexual abuse talk page, and that the WP:Crime tag is enough. I felt it was better to ask for opinions here. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that I have queried this WikiProject on child sexual abuse matters times before, and the project didn't seem to mind. That includes this 2017 notification regarding a dispute at the Child sexual abuse article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

To editor Flyer22:, It's good that you put in a notice, but it's not something worthy for me arguing over (or you for that matter). I'm just trying to explain to you it's not exactly relevant to the subject. That tag is better suited Laws on the sexual abuse, as I have done.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. That article benefits from the opinions of editors from this WikiProject. Let's see if others comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

New proposal for merger of "2018 Supreme Court of India crisis"

There is a new proposal for the merger of the 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis article. Discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of India/Archive 1#New proposal for merger of "2018 Supreme Court of India crisis". --Bejnar (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Bluebook journals

As a follow up to this discussion and this discussion, I got myself the 18th and 19th bluebook edition, and created a list of journals with Bluebook abbreviations. I've created redirects for all abbreviations that had a journal entry (or a journal redirect entry).

All redirects are marked with {{R from bluebook}} and can be found in Category:Redirects from Bluebook abbreviations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Gonna ping @Mendaliv and Markworthen: on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Wow! Looks like you did a ton of work on this Headbomb. I have to admit some of it is over my head, e.g., I don't fully understand how these redirects work. For example, when would a visitor encounter such a redirect? On a related topic, should all law reviews and specialized law journals have their Bluebook abbreviation in the Infobox? For example, Stanford Law Review lists both the Bluebook and ISO 4 abbreviations. However, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law lists only the ISO 4 abbreviation.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Markworthen: The reader would mostly encounter those when they're searching for things, or in citations. For instance some law student (or some newish lawyer) may encounter "Loy. Consumer L. Rev." in a citation somewhere. Without the redirect, they may think it stands for something like "Loyal Consumer L-something Reviews" and they're not quite sure where to get the information on this. The redirect takes them to Loyola Consumer Law Review, which is what the abbreviation standards for.
And yes, all infoboxes should be updated with bluebook abbreviations when they're available/when they are journals that likely to be cited in the American legal literature. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much on both counts! Very helpful. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @BD2412, Newyorkbrad, and Notecardforfree: from the first discussion as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Good work. I note that some law reviews do not have articles, but are mentioned in the articles for the law schools that produce them. These should be created as section redirects (for example, I have created FIU L. Rev.). bd2412 T 17:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that I got the ping, am traveling this weekend, but will have some thoughts when I get home. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the prompt for Bluebook abbreviations from the infobox, since I took care or most of them. The remaining cases were rarely bluebook-worthy. However, if you add the bluebook abbreviation, it will ask you to create the redirect, as before. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: any thoughts before I return the books to the library? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. No thoughts on the specific journal abbreviations or anything like that. It is a mistake to spend too much time worrying about the fine points of the Bluebook, especially here on Wikipedia where our style can be different, but redirects from abbreviations (with and without periods) seem helpful enough, and certainly harmless. FYI, for a letter I wrote a few years back regarding citation of one of my favorite law reviews, please see here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback requested for proposed rename of Entwurf eines Cannabiskontrollgesetzes

Your feedback about a proposed rename of Entwurf eines Cannabiskontrollgesetzes is requested at the move discussion page Talk:Entwurf eines Cannabiskontrollgesetzes#Requested move 6 May 2018. No German needed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox journal#RFC on abbreviation usage

Please comment above. This concerns the usage of Bluebook abbreviations in {{infobox journal}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Mergers Impacting on three WikiProject Law Articles

Hello, I have added proposals for mergers on two pages of interest to WikiProject Law (1) Criminal Behaviour Order (2) Public Space Protection Order The target page is Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 Please feel free to make comments on any of the three articles. Regards WPCW (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:People sentenced to death by gender or sex has been nominated for discussion

Category:People sentenced to death by gender or sex, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Formatting of Reference Section When Using Bluebook Citation Templates

I just started writing an article in which I am using Bluebook citation style. I have used the cite court and Bluebook website citation templates, which work well, but the citations do not appear in the References section. I am guessing that this happens because there are two ways to cite references using Bluebook citation style: 1) Practitioners writing non-academic documents (Bluepages Rules); and 2) Academics writing scholarly articles, usually for law review journals (Rules). Perhaps because I'm using Bluebook citation templates there is an assumption that the article should use the Practitioner format for references? Whatever the cause, I want the citations to appear as footnotes in the References section. How do I accomplish this goal?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I was able to achieve my goal, i.e., have all citations appear as footnotes in the Reference section, by using manual citation (as opposed to using a citation template). Is this the best solution?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Templates are the best solution. Having an example of a citation that didn't show in the reference section would be helpful here. Because I'm not aware of any issue with {{cite court}}/{{bluebook website}}/{{bluebook journal}} that wouldn't make them show up in the reference section. You're likely using the templates wrong, or not using the correct reference markup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
From what I can tell, you simply forgot to wrap the reference templates in ref tags (<ref>{{cite court ... }}</ref>). Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
Good golly Miss Molly! You are absolutely correct. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

US Magistrate Judges

Is there any understanding, whether written or just based on AfD outcomes, about whether US Federal Magistrate Judges are considered to qualify for articles based on criteria 1 of WP:JUDGE? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Input requested at Talk:Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission#Prognostication?

Interested editors are invited to comment in the discussion at Talk:Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission#Prognostication? whether the article should contain a paragraph about the impact on future cases. Regards SoWhy 10:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Template:Infobox U.S. district court

The discussion can be found at Template talk:Infobox U.S. district court#Allow for custom name. Ergo Sum 02:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on what sources would be adequate for what claims on this time-sensitive article. We have the problem that countless sources point in the same direction, but the usual sources for such aggregate information fail to provide it. --Nemo 07:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Template merger discussion

A discussion of the proposal to merge infoboxes for various U.S. federal courts is ongoing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 June 18#Condense federal court infoboxes. Ergo Sum 17:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If you're familiar with U.S. veterans disability law...

Today I submitted for review a draft article about the Veterans Benefits Administration's M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual. If could take a gander at the draft article and edit as you see fit, that would be way cool. :^) Of course, you don't need to have a background in veterans law as there's always a need for good copy editors and folks who know Bluebook citation style (which I used for the article). Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

SᴍᴀʟʟCᴀᴘs Tᴇxᴛ Tᴏᴏʟ

I have found this no-cost SᴍᴀʟʟCᴀᴘs Tᴇxᴛ Tᴏᴏʟ to be helpful. (I am not affiliated with the tool or developer in any way.) If you know of any problems using the tool to format text on Wikipedia, please let me know!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

English law: costs when damages are lower than a pre-trial offer

A issue has arisen at Talk:Lance Percival#Damages for car crash. In a case at the Court of Appeal in London in 1974, damages were awarded to the widow of a driver killed in a car crash, but she had turned down a pre-trial offer of slightly higher damages. Would this have made the widow was liable for all costs, which may have used up all the damages? This appears to be indicated by Costs in English law#Rejection of offers.

If the widow would have been or might have been liable for costs, should we mention this in the article? An IP editor's comments imply that in this case the widow did not receive compensation on the scale indicated. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

HELP WANTED

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Trump administration family separation policy

There is a discussion at the Trump administration family separation policy talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Infobox Criminal

The discussion is located here:

--K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Negligence per se cites The Wagon Mound - but that links to a DAB page. Does any expert here know which of the two cases with that title it was? Narky Blert (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: based on this and this it's Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd. GiantSnowman 13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Many thanks! I've repaired the link. Narky Blert (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing aritcle or section

Obscenity (law) goes to Obscenity, which has multi-jurisdiction legal info. Indecency (law) doen't go anywhere, and Indeceny redirects to something without any legal info. We should have an overview article on this terms as it applies in various jurisdictions. Or possibly also have it go to the same place as Obscenity (law) and distinguish the definitions there.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Graphs from WIPO publications available on Commons

Hi all

I've started working with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to share graphs from their publications on Commons. The first 50 are available now here, taken from the 2016 and 2017 'Facts and Figures' publications. Please take a look and add useful ones to articles so that WIPO can see the value of sharing content under an open license.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ian Swingland#Trial

Input welcome at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Court order. GiantSnowman 11:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"APNEL"

Hi. The article APNEL needs assessment and editing. Thanks! --Thinker78 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Making false statements has no information on the legal concept outside of US law.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I added a {{Globalize}} template to the page, backdated to your comment. -Furicorn (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on cleanup at Template:Infobox U.S. federal court

Please see the discussion here on whether to condense and reform many parameters. Ergo Sum 04:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Objection over definition of the practice of law

More than enough time has been spent debating this. Concerns about content that may violate applicable laws should be directed to the Wikimedia Foundation. Now, let's build an encyclopedia. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It would follow that, in the United States, the definition of the practice of law in the state of Texas includes making statements that would require a "skill" of any kind in making legal determinations. Therefore, it is proposed that any statements outside of those statements made directly by a justice (such as quoting a direct opinion) could constitute the practice of law in that jurisdiction and should be banned from Wikipedia, as opposed to having the Texas Bar mandate such removal immediately under threat of criminal or civil prosecution. Note that I have reported such to the Texas Bar as the unlicensed practice of law per Texas state statute. Please state your objections under this sub-heading, Otherwise all such commentary that is more than the commentary issued by the courts will be removed as the unlawful practice of law, by reason of the same. Thank you. USN007 (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The right to freedom of speech and of the press recogized in the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees people the right to discuss laws in a general context. It is only providing legal advice to a particular person about a particular legal issue that might be unlawful practice of law. In some jurisdictions, it isn't unlawful practice of law unless the person giving the advice is being paid. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Jc3s5h The regulation of the Practice of law has never been considered unconstitutional under the first amendment. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't even allow Pro Se Litigants (i.e. persons representing themselves) to present oral arguments before them at all, as such has been the custom of that court for several decades, and Faretta v. California places similar restrictions upon whom may practice law, even in a pro se setting. Therefore, I think your confusing freedom of speech with the First amendment right to petition. The First amendment has never been historically interpreted to allow the unlicensed practice of a profession. Even if that is a reasonable position, the fact is that for now, it's still technically illegal, and as Wikipedians we should be careful not to violate criminal laws, if Wikipedia is to continue to have a reputable name as a source. In the United States (where Wikipedia is located) there is no state that allows the unlicensed practice of law where practice is "unpaid"- rather every state in the Union criminalizes "any" Practice of law that is unlicensed, or where one falsely holds oneself out to be a member of the bar. USN007 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

State by state definitions on the Practice of law can be found here: [[6]]. USN007 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello USN007. No content on Wikipedia should be considered legal advice. Please see the WP:General disclaimer and the WP:Legal disclaimer for more information. Wikipedia articles should also contain information reported by reliable secondary sources, and original research such as synthesis of multiple sources is already prohibited. It's not worth trying to bring various different jurisdictional issues into this discussion, as they are mostly irrelevant. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Please also see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber The problem with that is that while we might state that one shouldn't "Consider" it advice, that doesn't negate the fact that it is advice for the purposes of UPL statutes. Such disclaimers have historically not prevented criminal or civil prosecution for UPL in several jurisdictions. (Several UPL opinions in Wikipedia's jurisdiction, the state of Florida, establish this fact.) Not only that, but even if that were the case, then a disclaimer template should appear on each and every applicable page to make that abundantly clear. It is not enough to have a policy statement somewhere where non-editors can't easily find it. As for WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, I would also find that such doesn't apply here because of the fact that the point is a friendly tip to avoid the potential for litigation, not necessarily to threaten litigation, as it would ultimately be up to the Florida State Bar to pursue such action, as there is no right to nor possibility of private legal action in the first place. I was just merely pointing out that the State of Florida via the Florida Bar UPL committee could potentially take action on this if they choose to do so. Additionally, I do not have discretion as to whether to report this matter, because for purposes of UPL I am a mandatory reporter in the State of Florida. Therefore, there is no "threat" but rather I am attempting to avoid a "requirement" that is imposed upon me, if possible.USN007 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear USN007: In the context of an encyclopedia article, the idea that "any statements outside of those statements made directly by a justice (such as quoting a direct opinion) could constitute the practice of law in that jurisdiction and should be banned from Wikipedia [ . . .]" is a preposterous statement. No, the Florida UPL statute does not mean what you claim it means. Famspear (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
And no, the statement that "every state in the Union criminalizes "any" Practice of law that is unlicensed" is false. Look, this is a fairly technical legal subject. States criminal the UNAUTHORIZED practice of law, not "any" practice of law. In a broad sense, certified public accountants and real estate brokers "practice law" quite often (although it is not called that), but it is not the unauthorized practice of law -- and it's not a criminal offense. For example, CPAs who are not licensed to practice law routinely prepare documents (for compensation, by the way), the filing of which documents with government entities forecloses certain legal rights of their clients and asserts other legal rights of their clients -- and this practice is perfectly legal. I'm talking, of course, about the preparation of U.S. Federal income tax returns.
The idea that the use of secondary and tertiary sources in an encyclopedia constitutes a criminal offense under "practice of law" statutes is silly. Famspear (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@USN007:, I see that you've already tried to remove content on the basis of your idiosyncratic views, and all of these edits have been reverted (including by people who are attorneys IRL). If you continue to do this, if you WP:EDITWAR, or if you threaten to report individual editors or the Wikimedia Foundation to any government or legal agency (no matter how absurd your claims), your account will be blocked. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Question: Which article(s) is this that is being discussed? When we discuss other articles, courtesy is to wikilink to it. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The OP is speaking about Wikipedia's coverage of legal subjects generally, not anything specific. But they've tried applying their theory to the removal of content from two articles so far, reverted twice on one and once on the other.[7],[8],[9] postdlf (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This is perhaps the most ridiculous debate I’ve seen in quite some time. Wikipedia is for all intents and purposes an academic (well sort of haha) endeavour. The practice of law is the giving of legal advice to a person for a concrete purpose specific to them. Wikipedia does not provide legal advice tailored to a specific person’s legal situstion (e.g., If X then do Y). Wikipedia is therefore in no way practising law. The discussion of legal principles in an abstract sense is by all means protected speech (I can only speak from a European (ECHR) perspective, but given that free speech is interpreted more broadly by SCOTUS than by the European Court of Human Rights, I imagine that such pseudo-academic speech is equally protected under the 1st amendment to the US constitution). Île flottante (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

flottante Your opinion is quite misguided. The defintion of the practice of law includes "the rendering of any service requiring the use of legal skill or knowledge, such as preparing a will, contract, or other instrument, the legal effect of which under the facts and conclusions involved must be carefully determined." See Texas Government Code 81.101 et seq. Subsection C of that statute says that electronic media prepared by a non attorney must conspicuously (on each and every web page) state that it is not legal adivce. Therefeore, our current way of doing things is very much the unauthorized practice of law under Texas state law, because we haven't yet complied with the "Conspicuous notice" requirement, which is what this "debate" is about. The first amendment has never been thought to regulate or control such matters. You're attempting to argue that the first amendment protects the unauthorized practice of law, which is a frivolous legal position, outright, which seems to indicate that you don't know what you're talking about. USN007 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

David Tornheim This is a discussion of general policy, where the majority of the articles fail to comply with a "conspicuous disclaimer" requirement as required by Texas Government Code 81.101(c) et seq. despite the site being available within the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USN007 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No services have been rendered; law-related articles on Wikipedia don't meet your definition. I'm sure that if you were right, which you aren't, a competent government authority would have acted by now. Île flottante (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Île flottante Not necessarily- The UPL committies and the state Bar in general don't have a standing investigative force in the manner you'd imagine- rather they generally must have a viable complaint placed before them before they will take action on a matter. Therefore, the fact that Wikipedia hasn't been censured in the past is no indication, per se, that the Bar wouldn't consider such as UPL. USN007 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@USN007: sorry to say but it appears that you are the one with no idea how the law works. At least in this area. If You attempt to report Wikipedia for the unlicensed practice of law, please record the bar association's staff laughing you out of the office. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 03:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Zchrykng You are the one with a lack of knowledge, as are most of these individuals. The nature of my concern is clearly supported by the statutory and case law- and all I'm hearing in response is the argument that Wikipedia shouldn't have to follow the law like everyone else. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. That's why I've now taken the matter up with the Wikimedia Foundation directly and with the government, since Wikipedia seems to think it doesn't have to follow the law. USN007 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

USN007, did you record the government's reaction when you tried reporting this like I asked? I would like to see that video. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 22:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Please give the jurisprudential references for the supposed case law supporting your interpretation. You've come to a project page where most editors are either lawyers or have a legal education and you've been met with the resounding consensus that you're argument is wrong. Wikipedia works on consensus and the consensus has clearly been shown to disagree with the edits you wish to make. I very seriously doubt the Wikimedia Foundation will be persuaded by your ideas. No one has said that Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the law; to the contrary: look at almost any image file and you'll see how copyright laws from around the world are carefully respected. People are, however, saying that your interpretation of this legal disposition is wrong. My suggestion to you would be to first undertake a legal education before seeking to share your interpretations with others. ;) Île flottante (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Perth International Law Journal

copy/paste from Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)

I came across this draft in the WP:AFC queue. I wonder if members of the project could advise as to notability. As an open-access, student journal, I'm inclined to decline, but wanted to ask here first. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say. The article looks general good, and most law journals/law reviews are student runs, so that's not really a strike against. WP:LAW would have insight here. It might be best to have an article on UWA International Law Club instead, and have the info about the journal there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

end copy/paste

Notice of RfC at Brett Kavanaugh

If you would like to give your feedback on whether certain polls should be included in Brett Kavanaugh article regarding his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, please respond here: Talk:Brett_Kavanaugh#RfC_--_polls_on_nomination. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Definition of blackmail

Opinions are needed at Talk:Blackmail#Definition of Blackmail. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Campbell Collaboration collaboration

posted at WT:LAW, WT:PLT and WT:SOCIO

The Campbell collaboration (sister group to the Cochrane collaboration are possibly interested in forming a collaboration to use their systematic reviews of policy interventions to help update Wikipedia (analagous to Cochrane's medical meta-analyses). WP:MED already has a collaboration with Cochrane, so Campbell could be a good fit. Let me know if you'd like to be part of the email thread following up on this. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 08:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion on sources?

Hello, working on gathering sources to expand Acceleration (law) and was hoping to get some advice on sources, since this is the first time I've set out to expand on a legal article.

Sources I've found that I thought might be decent

  1. Cornell
  2. Florida State University
  3. New York Law Journal
  4. St Johns Law Review
  5. CPA Journal
  6. Morris James
  7. And figured I should update this and/or add a main article link.

Please let me know if those look decent for this. zchrykng (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  1. Cornell - Wex is a crowdsourced legal dictionary, not unlike Wikipedia in many ways. It is pretty good and has editorial review. Not my first choice of law dictionary, but it is good enough to be used.
  2. Florida State University - The Florida State University Law Review is a student run quarterly law journal. It has editorial review and is pretty good, but is not necessarily everyone's favorite source because "it's run by students".
  3. New York Law Journal - law.com is fine, it is somewhat varied what you find on it so checking the New York Law Journal and the authors Adam Leitman Bailey and Adam M. Swanson reassure me this is a good source.
  4. St Johns Law Review - The St. John’s Law Review is another student run quarterly law journal, and the same basic issue applies.
  5. CPA Journal - A good source, bear in mind it is a little dated.
  6. Morris James - Nope. It's an attorneys personal/business site and the lack of editorial oversight makes it unusable for anything serious.
  • I have some other sources that could be of interest from Heinonline, I can email them to you if you like. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    Frayae, thank you! That would be fantastic. My plan at this point is to use the student law reviews as background for my own understanding and cite to the more reliably reliable sources for the actual text of the article. zchrykng (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    Got your email, thanks! Will read through them later when I have more time. I forgot I also have access to a lot of resources through the OSU library system as a alumni, so I will check that as well. zchrykng (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm working on Terry stop and Consent search and would like some company in the Talk pages, where I've been putting up notes. Both pages need to be rewritten. Also needed is a page for Pretextual stop which currently redirects to Driving while black.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Enclave law (Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank)

Please could interested editors join the discussion here. The has been an attempt to undermine the article by removing all sources which do not include the specific terminology "enclave", despite the article being about the concept of Israeli civil law in Israeli controlled portions of the West Bank. There aren't enough involved editors to ensure a sensible discussion, so all input is appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

VLex (notable or not)?

Found this VLex company article. Is it notable or not? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • It is a large and relevant legal information portal and I would not vote delete at AfD because it is based mainly in non-English speaking countries and sources about it may be heavily paywalled or in databases I do not have logins to. Thus I cannot with certainty say that it is not notable. All that said I do not know if the article can be improved that easily. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Civics, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Terry v. Ohio in disrepair

Just dropped by to mention that Terry v. Ohio, the most important case in Fourth Amendment law, is in a terrible state and needs your attention. Just for starters, it has no citations. Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Article assessment backlog

Hello, I just added an article requesting assessment to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Assessment. I wanted to notify your project that there is an article (Judiciary of Russia) waiting for assessment from 29 May 2013...so, that is five years ago! As there are only 12 articles waiting for assessment, including mine, I'd like to request speedier service!! Thanks :-) Seahawk01 (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities published first article

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

  • Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
  • Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

  • Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Defamation

All, there's a slow-ish motion edit war going on at Defamation about whether or not to include intent as part of the definition. I don't know anything about this stuff and can't really evaluate references, so some extra eyes would be welcome. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Legal reasoning

A new editor created Draft:Legal reasoning, but seems to be having trouble grasping what Wikipedia requires. However, this is probably a topic worth having, so hopefully this project can rescue the draft and make it a workable article. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested page move

There is a requested move at Talk:Environs (journal) that would very much benefit from your input. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  21:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Law article "Common recovery", no References since 2006

Expert help please

JoeHebda (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Sharing with Law WP about article Common recovery was tagged in 2006 as having no references. Hoping members of Law wikiproject may be able to improve this article (totally outside my area of expertise). Thanks. JoeHebda (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Law Firm article titles

Wanted to get people's thoughts on the current practice for titling law firm articles. As an example, I was surprised to see the article at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, while Skadden and Skadden Arps are both redirects; this practice seems contrary to WP:COMMONNAME. The full firm name practice also seems like it would generate much more article moving, particularly among smaller firms that change their named partners more frequently. Thoughts? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

private use

Do we have an article on "Private use" in law (ie. versus public use) or copyright law ? The current redirect seems inappropriate, considering the existence of private use airports and private use under copyright law, particularly the Betamax case -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Migrant worker/Foreign worker

Discussion is invited about a proposal to merge 'Foreign worker' into 'Migrant worker'. Thanks - Meticulo (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Criminal justice financial obligations

I just stubbed Criminal justice financial obligations. Sorry for it being just a single sentence. I will deorphan it and do what else I can. If anyone out there cares about the subject, please consider adding a bit to expand it. There are plenty of refs pasted its talk page. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Bills and invoices for criminal justice financial obligations

Hi. I'm looking for the bills and invoices given to those who were incarcerated. They are for the Criminal justice financial obligations article.

Examples:

  • Bill for per diem jail charges
  • Fines
  • Restitution
  • Bill for court costs

An example of what I am after is contained roughly half way into this pdf.

(I cannot find anything at commons.)

So, if anyone has something like this and can take a photo of it to upload to commons, it would really improve the article.

Many thanks!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

To add. Specifically we would need documents from an employee of the US Federal Government, or a state that releases it's content into the public domain (Florida and Maryland...others?). GMGtalk 23:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on drug name

Requests for comment are sought at Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides § RfC on drug name on how to state the name of a drug mentioned in court documents about a living person. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A question for WikiLaw: if I am writing an article about a court decision, would subsequent decisions that reference the case that is the topic of the article I am writing count as secondary sources? For example, when a Supreme Court decision references a previous decision--"As the court found in X vs. Y, you can't do that..." could be cited in the article on the case X v. Y to establish its importance, legacy, etc. I'm conscious that for some Wikiprojects the distinction between primary/secondary is binary. It is more complicated in Law where a source can be both depending on how it is used. I've checked WP:LAWMOS and it doesn't offer much guidance on decisions as secondary sources. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you view as the consequence of which way that later court opinion is viewed? postdlf (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Let's say I'm writing the Wikipedia article for the case X v. Y. I have a subsequent Supreme Court decision that says, "As the court found in X v. Y, you can't do that." I want to use this statement in the lead of my article on the case X v. Y: "X v. Y was a Supreme Court case that established the liability of people who do a thing." There may not be a newspaper or journal article that says that because the case is recent or from a country with a small jurisdiction. In this case, I'm asking would editors agree that a subsequent decision that offers a summary of a previous case and references it as a precedent establishes the notability of the original case. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
As a general principle, Supreme Court cases are notable (and secondary sources such as newspaper articles, law review articles, and textbook references can be found for almost all of them). I wouldn't use a reference from a later case to establish notability, but I would have no problem using it to establish the facts and holding of the previous case. bd2412 T 15:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for asking this question AugusteBlanqui! You prompted me to search for any guidance and I found a very helpful essay: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law) - A crisply written, nicely organized, cogent essay. Highly recommended!
Also see the two comments by Find bruce (talk) on the article's Talk page. Find bruce directly addresses your question:

Describing case law as exclusively a primary source does not reflect the nuanced nature of judicial decisions. Most case law deals with 3 matters (1) findings of fact (2) setting out the law & (3) applying the law to the facts. The typical judgment is only a primary source in relation to the 3rd. In relation to findings of fact, these are only made having considered primary sources and thus are clearly "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

All the best - Mark ...   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words Markworthen - I should add that my opinion is not necessarily shared by everyone, not least of which because my perspective from Australia may be different to elsewhere. Where wiki editors regularly come unstuck is in mimicking decisions, textbooks, journal articles etc by saying "the court found in X v Y that ..." and then give a reference to X v Y. The sort of approach AugusteBlanqui sets out seems to me to be on the right track, especially for more recent decisions where there is often less widely published consideration. It doesn't mean that the judge's view is correct - there are often disagreements among judges as well as lawyers & academics. As an encyclopedia we don't need to argue for one - where there is disagreement among reliable sources, Wikipedia's role is to note it in a balanced way. Find bruce (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks--this is very helpful Markworthen and Find bruce. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Comments welcome here: [10] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A new article on a clause of the U.S. Constitution

I have created a stubby new article on the Engagements Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Naturally it needs further work. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Task: Compelling state interest

I am willing to work on the Compelling state interest but would like to briefly outline my planned approach and get anyone else's thoughts on the topic.

I assume that the compelling state interest page is intended to cover the kind and types of "government interests" that the federal government or a state government must have when it produces legislation or a regulation that is alleged to infringe on a constitutional right. Based on this assumption, I am thinking about about structuring the page something like this:

  • Intro
    • Provide an explanation of what a government interest is and when the courts require that one exist. This section would also briefly mention that the level of government interest needed (i.e., legitimate government interest, substantial government interest, compelling government interest, etc.) is tied directly to severity of the alleged infringement. For example, infringement of a fundamental right triggers strict scrutiny, which requires proof of a compelling state interest. (Think, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)).
  • Legitimate state interest (Rational-basis review)
    • provide brief case illustrations where this type of interest was required to provide examples of what would qualify as this kind of interest.
  • Substantial state interest (Intermediate scrutiny)
    • provide brief case illustrations where this type of interest was required to provide examples of what would qualify as this kind of interest.
  • Compelling state interest (Strict scrutiny)
    • provide brief case illustrations where this type of interest was required to provide examples of what would qualify as this kind of interest.

And that would pretty much be it.

Excited to hear others' thoughts.

HoldingAces (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to flesh out articles on government interest and your outline above is a good start to an outline. However, I'm concerned that you linked directly to Government interest instead of the redirect Compelling state interest, while piping Compelling state interest. Where are you going to put the article, and what is it going to cover? Compelling state interest is a term of art in U.S. law, applicable in strict scrutiny cases. As your outline acknowledges, legitimate and substantial state intrest are other forms of government interest. However, I would hesitate to say that the concept of Government interest is unique to U.S. legal thought, and an article at Government interest should take a comparative view to capture non-U.S. (and non-legal) use of the term. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Sorry about the confusion with the links, and I guess I am still a little confused. I am not familiar with non-U.S. and non-legal use of the term government interest, so I would not feel comfortable writing on the topic. So would creating a new page titled something like "Government interest in U.S. law" be a good idea? I am not sure having a different page for each type of U.S. government interest (i.e., compelling, substantial, and legitimate) would be best. I feel that the different types of interests are so closely related that having them in one article would make the most sense. And of course, if that article grows to large, they could be spliced out a later time. HoldingAces (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
HoldingAces, Perhaps making it clear in the introductory paragraph that the article is specifically dealing with the concept as used in U.S. law, and/or including a hatnote pointing to National interest and Government debt (as some people searching for "Government interest" are probably thinking interest on debt), would help. I think National interest should probably cover anything non-us that would otherwise be covered in Government interest. Confusingly, State interest currently redirects to National interest, but when I was in con-law classes in law school it seemed Government interest and State interest were used interchangably in case law, depending on if the acting government was a State-level government, local or municipal government, or the Federal government. I'm not sure that's the best redirect target, but it can always be changed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Law School Deans

Can someone familiar with the role of law school deans perhaps provide input to the discussion here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammersoft#Decline

Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:10D5:843F:172A:398D (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability of Law School Deans

I have opened discussion as to whether a law school Dean of a major academic institution should be considered notable, here.--2604:2000:E010:1100:8069:D17F:7325:3D9 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning egg incident

Eyes are needed please at Talk:Fraser Anning egg incident, particularly those with more Australian legal expertise than this layman, regarding the likelihood of being in contempt of court for identifying a 17-year-old. Thanks. Meticulo (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

US Justices

Hello fellow editors. A number of articles in Template:Lists of US Justices are poorly sourced. I wanted to bring this up since it is connected to this WikiProject. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Susman Godfrey for rework

Not sure how to handle this. I found this article during a regular categories maintenance work. The subject looks notable, but the article itself is absolutely not up to the standards of Wikipedia. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like blatant advertising to me. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Incitement to suicide in the workplace and Workplace bullying and PTSD

Hello. Is anyone here interested in creating Incitement to suicide in the workplace and Workplace bullying and PTSD please? I think both articles should include other aspects as well (health consequences, possibly cultural references in movies/novels), but the law may be a good place to start.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Karen Naimer notability check

Please check Karen Naimer article. It is hard for me to evaluate personal notability of this lawyer. Another obvious problem of this article is WP:Citekill. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX copyrights and linking. Nemo 15:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_22&oldid=1088735825"