Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Bouveng v. NYG Capital LLC et al. advice

Please give your expert advice on (properly stated) COI editing suggestions for a Benjamin Wey article related to Bouveng v. NYG Capital LLC et al, No. 14-cv-5474.

1. When did the case end? Was it: a) in April 2016, when the award to Bouveng was reduced to $5.6 million by a Federal District Court judge, b) on June 13, 2018, when judge Paul G. Gardephe issued a Stipulation And Consent Order with Permanent Injunction?
2. If the answer is b, please tell what is the correct phrasing to include this information into the text.

I have drafted several editing suggestions (3, 4, 3a) all of which were rejected by the reviewing editor Spintendo. The last rejected editing suggestion was On June 13, 2018, Bouveng and Wey mutually dropped the case and it was closed, referenced with The New York Post article and the above mentioned Stipulation And Consent Order with Permanent Injunction.

Previously the reviewing editor stated:

The Wikipedia article should not become a diary of the subject's legal battles before those battles have been won

However, when asked to add what seemed to be the final stage of this legal battle, the reviewing editor replied:

That the award was reduced in amount to 5.6 million ought to be the final mention-able point regarding this case. Further descriptions of this case as being "mutually dropped by both participants", while being technically accurate, may be done so in order to imbue the end of the case — in particular its participants actions in ending it together — with a sense of bonhomie not evident in a perusal of the court's documents. No other reading of this request offers an explanation as satisfactory as this one, for why such a redundant step in the legal process would wish to be added to the article. The language of "dropping the case" is merely the language used when a settlement has been achieved and the plaintiff wishes to end proceedings. I'm afraid that here, the hope may be that mentioning the case as "being dropped" might imply that the entire affair was misguided, owing to the natural misconception of what it means to "drop a case" in the public's sense of those words.

As I am not an expert in legal issues and don’t have much editing experience, I am kindly asking for your unbiased judgement here following WP:HTBAE and WP:FAPO. I assume good faith (WP:FAITH) in editor’s comments and seek for a third opinion that helps to establish a WP:NPOV.

I am well aware that as an editor with the conflict of interest I should not ask anyone to be engaged in long or repetitive discussions (WP:COITALK) so please answer only if you feel that this discussion helps to improve Wikipedia and Benjamin Wey’s article following all Wikipedia’s guidelines.

All the documents related to Bouveng v. NYG Capital LLC et al, No. 14-cv-5474 could be found via this link.

I kindly ask @Eastmain: and 7&6=thirteen to contribute to this disccussion. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• First, IANAL. The settlement sounds as if Bouveng agreed to accept a lower settlement in exchange for Wey and NYG Capital not appealing the case. If this speculation has appeared in a reliable source, then it could be included. The amount of money that changed hands is probably hidden by a non-disclosure agreement. I think it is legitimate to say that there was a settlement that may have involved a lower but undisclosed payment. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Eastmain thank you for sharing your point of view. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

An "RfC" that needs expert legal-writer input

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy#RfC concerning the requirement of a secondary source to reach a valid interpretation of a primary source. While the direct question posed in it (and then lobbied about quite non-neutrally) is basically a bunch of "how do I WP:GAME the exact letter of some policies to get what I want" stuff, the underlying question is about reliability of secondary sources treating footnotes and other dicta from legal primary sources as if actual court rulings on law, and that probably needs some "we've already been over this and have the answer" input from people who deal every day with WP use of legal documents and [mis]reporting about them. For all I know, the sources in this case may actually be correct, but the question is open and needs to be closed with some authority.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

New RfC

This has now evolved to a properly posed, neutral RfC about how best to include information about a US Circuit Court ruling in an article; it can be found here. --JBL (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Production logo, 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, 6 May 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

People widely considered to be innocent

People may have opinions about the suggestion here - that this list of "wrongful" convictions not include "people who have not been formally exonerated but are widely considered to be factually innocent."

--2604:2000:E010:1100:D007:5F1:8AAD:529D (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Chairman to Chairperson

In case anyone is interested, see Talk:Chairman#Requested move 8 May 2019. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review: Albert Kesselring

I have nominated Albert Kesselring 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletions from case about crime

Perhaps some readers of this page will have interest in the editing dispute regarding deletions from an article about a crime that is taking place here. --2604:2000:E010:1100:D9B6:6633:7B22:2F07 (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Irish Supreme Court cases

Hello Wikiproject Law,

I have been using Wikipedia as part of an Information Literacy component for First-Year students at Maynooth University for the past three years. This year I persuaded several faculty members of our law department to start working with Wikipedia.  Our goal is to contribute to Wikipedia by creating articles on Irish Supreme Court cases. Supreme Court cases are, by definition, notable and there are few Irish Supreme Court cases on Wikipedia.  Writing Supreme Court case articles also helps achieve our educational goals; the process is beneficial to law students on multiple levels—most crucially learning to write law content for a lay audience.

In preparation for student work, the law faculty wrote short articles on recent cases to serve as examples for our students.  While pristine in the academic legal context, I was hoping that this Wikiproject could look at the articles and offer suggestions for improving them as Wikipedia articles.  We will use this feedback to help our students with their articles.

The Wikipedia Education Foundation does not support projects outside of North America so when working with faculty and students I rely on my own experience as an editor and the resources available through the Outreach Dashboard.  As such, feedback from Wikiproject Law would be of immense value because you are specialists both in law and Wikipedia. For example, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ flagged one article (Moylist) and it was almost speedy-deleted. I reviewed the article and the direct quotes are appropriate/important and properly cited regardless of whether or not BAILII decision publications are public domain. As we start working with students we want to ensure that their articles conform to Wikipedia guidelines.

The faculty articles are:

Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny

Blood v DPP

Nottinghamshire County Council v B

Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice

Geraldine Weir-Rogers v. Sf Trust Ltd

In addition, I have a created a list article: List of Irish Supreme Court cases

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Great, and thanks for making such a valuable contribution to Wikipedia! Recruiting subject matter experts is invaluable. I won't get into the individual articles, but I have two pieces of generalized feedback.

• First, unlike academic works, our policy on original research forbids large passages to be based on primary sources. When discussing a court opinion, the opinion itself is a primary source. Therefore, your faculty writers should try to bring in more secondary sources that cover these opinions, such as scholarly publications and news articles.
• Second, presumably unlike Irish legal scholarship, Wikipedia articles are intended for a lay international audience. Therefore, legal jargon should be avoided when possible, and when not possible it should be explained in lay terms. Also, your writers shouldn't forget that there may be aspects of these cases that may be of interest to a lay audience that wouldn't necessarily appear in a scholarly article--for instance, the human interest back story, or the aftermath of the case. News reporting on these cases may help to reveal these sorts of aspects.

User:Ahrtoodeetoo (bleep) 15:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo and R2: thanks for the feedback. I can manage most of the general Wiki aspect (e.g., trying to de-orphan, categories, etc.) but it is great to have 'macro' feedback. As soon as Moylist was flagged I recommended that use of direct quotes be looked at. In general, I have tried to base our articles on the format of the FA cases of this Wikiproject. There seems to be some ambiguity about quoting from cases. For example, Washington v. Texas quotes extensively from opinions--Earwig puts it at 70% chance of being a copvio. An editor who does not understand the use of decisions as primary sources to establish the facts of the case might make a quick decision to flag it for copyvio as happened with Moylist. Dietrich v The Queen, another FA, is typical of many of the cases we reviewed that quote extensively from the decision primary source. I think nuance is needed here more than in other cases on Wikipedia. We have reviewed Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law) and in particular this comment on the talk page by Find bruce. I think an important question is the extent to which the quality and utility of an article on a Supreme Court case (for any jurisdiction) benefits from direct quotes from primary sources than may otherwise be the case on Wikipedia. As to the second point, absolutely I think additional context would strengthen the articles. Thanks again for your comments. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with including a fair number of quotations when the quoted language is significant; if the quotes are appropriately attributed then there's no copyvio concern. (Also, at least under U.S. law, court opinions are in the public domain, so copyright concerns don't apply.) The primary concern with excessive citation to the court opinion itself, aside from it being a potential OR issue, is that it sometimes leads to an article that's effectively the personal analysis or interpretation of the case by the editor(s) who wrote it. While that's exactly what you want in a scholarly work, it's exactly what we don't want here, and it can be difficult for legal scholars or other subject matter experts to avoid inserting their own personal analyses or interpretations. I'm not suggesting that any of your faculty members have done this, just that it's something they should be keeping in mind. To be clear, mahy of our best case law articles do include analyses and reactions by legal scholars, but that analysis appears in secondary sources (e.g. legal journals, books, news stories) and is generally attributed in-text. R2 (bleep) 16:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Ahrtoodeetoo: this is very helpful, especially the link to fair number. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability help needed on "Act" passed by House only

Perhaps someone here is able to help sort out a notability issue: I am not familiar with this territory. There are multiple issues here:

• Russian–Venezuelan Threat Mitigation Act is mostly sourced to primary sources and the congresswoman who introduced the bill. Separating out a lot of tangential background text and their sources (which don't mention the bill), I can find only local sources that cover the bill, besides primary documents and the congresswoman who introduced it. It doesn't appear to have any traction-- because it doesn't do anything.
• It has been passed by the House, but not the Senate: best I can tell, there is nothing proposed in the Senate.
• So, it's not a thing yet ... and is hardly mentioned in the press ... so should it have an article?

A separate concern is that this Act doesn't really ask for anything that is not being done anyway, it asks for and requires nothing that the US government isn't working on anyway, so it reads as if it could be a play for press attention. Should it be an article? Are bills that pass the House and get minimal media attention notable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Great question SandyGeorgia. I would suggest keeping it for now, partly because it's well-written with reliable sources, and because the Senate might consider it in the near future (maybe), and if that body votes in favor and the President signs it into law, then it will definitely be notable. If nothing happens with the bill then we can delete it.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Utah Polygamy and Law Since 2000

I'm wondering if someone from this WikiProject could take a look at this article and assess it. It was created by a student editor as part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Brigham Young University/HIST 221 - Gonzales - The United States Since 1877 (Winter 2019), and student moved the article to the mainspace on their own without submitting it for WP:AFC review. There are some WP:MOS and other similar errors which can be cleaned up, but my main concerns are that it's a WP:CONTENTFORK which might not need it's own stand-alone article. I don't believe the university course this student created the article for has ended; so, it's possible that they are still going to get graded on their work; at the same time, it's been added to the mainspace which means that it probably shouldn't be left as is just because it's part of a student editing project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the article has since been removed so your points were well-taken.:O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Fiction

Does this project's scope include fiction? I would think it doesn't, but the banner has been added to the talk pages of many articles, categories etc. which are about law fiction, including Talk:L.A. Law. Jim Michael (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally would include a fiction article under this WikiProject's scope only if the article discusses substantive legal topics.

For example, the LA Law article could conceivably contain a section that reviews legal principles or laws presented on the show that are inaccurate or misconstrued. In that case, I would say the article would fall within the scope of WP:LAW.

Since the LA Law article does not contain such a section, I wonder if we (WP:LAW) want to have it on our list. But I choose not to remove the WP:LAW banner from the article because I would want to achieve a consensus first.

I can see an argument for including law-related TV shows, movies, and books as within the scope of our WikiProject given this description: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it" (emphasis added). I would argue against including all legally-related articles. But that's just my two cents. Excellent question.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Reorganization of Tasks page

I embarked on a reorganization of the WP:LAW Tasks page. Please chime in. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Equality Act discussion could use input

A discussion here, on Talk:Equality Act (United States) regarding weight, source quality and NPOV could use broader input, since the discussion has all of two participants and the associated back-and-forth editing has, like, four. I am notifying this wikiproject and the LGBT wikiproject. -sche (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know -sche. It is an important discussion.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments requested at DYK nomination

Hello, members of WikiProject Law.

For those interested, a law-related DYK nomination is open for comments. The related article is: Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt.

Thank you, MrClog (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on this RfC

Please see this RfC on whether we should include an exhaustive list of claims and declarations regarding indigenous intellectual property. Thank you. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

• Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
• From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
• Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments requested from WP Law at DYK

We have Template:Did you know nominations/Kaj Linna and I'm wondering if it's correct to say he was "exonerated." I don't want to put that on the main page if it's not really correct, even though some journalists are using that term. --valereee (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Legislator, 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 00:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Template:Law of the United States

Please see the talk page discussion at {{Law of the United States}} to ascertain if the problems seen by Coolcaesar are accurate and if there is need for correction. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiLaw

Please note that there is a proposal for a new Wikimedia project that might be called Wikilaw:

Free legal repository … Laws are all mostly already in public domain. The court cases and decisions are in public domain too. But its all text, not fit for machines. It should be organised and broken down in wikidata like structure to make it machine readable. Required for research in legal field using advanced computing solutions. … One multilingual wiki like wikidata.

You might like to take part in the discussion taking place there (seen via a comment in WPSP).--Aschmidt (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Solome Bossa duplicates Solomy Balungi Bossa

FYI Solome Bossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) duplicates Solomy Balungi Bossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Force of law RfD

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 13#Force of law may be of interest to editors interested in legal matters. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

1986 California Proposition 65

Hi together, phaps sombady can look for the 4last qestion at Talk:1986 California Proposition 65 thank you --Calle Cool (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on RfC

Please comment on this RfC as to whether or not certain items and statistics should be displayed in the lead of a law firm article. (One Administrator had weighed in; comments on same TALK page, July 24, prior to this RfC.) Thank you, Lindenfall (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Technical standards

A new WikiProject has been proposed where your knowledge and competence could be very useful.
You are invited to join the discussion about this proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Technical standards. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Judicial officer

This stub could use some TLC. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  14:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

RM of interest

A request to re-title an article which may be of interest to members of this project is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Human rights for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Human rights is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human rights 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality and original research issues in articles related to Medicaid estate recovery

Recently, I noted that some of the content about Medicaid estate recovery that was added to the following articles introduced neutrality and original research issues into these articles:

• Medicaid estate recovery (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/682619084/912949236
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/909824345/912954601
• Massachusetts health care reform (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/901904756/912699623
• Health insurance coverage in the United States (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/905346028/912738497
• Health insurance in the United States (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/910497164/912742742
• Medicaid (edit talk links history): Special:Diff/909480199/909790623

I brought this to the neutral point of view noticeboard at WP:NPOVN § Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier, and the editor who added the content (NormSpier) agreed to have it examined for policy compliance.

If you are interested in the topic of Medicaid estate recovery, or in United States healthcare laws in general, please help us review the newly added content at the noticeboard discussion or on the talk pages of these articles. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 20:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Tools of trade for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tools of trade 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/Tools of trade until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Theprussian (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article

There is a request for comment on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau article. Call a matter a plea agreement? Probation? Parole? Suspended sentence that was unsuspended?

We need opinions on the following: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#suspended prison term. It concerns what terminology to use, given the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Law and the several other portals that fall within the scope of this WikiProject? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely because of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• What constitutes "maintenance" under the guidelines? bd2412 T 02:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• It is not specified, so it falls to the dictionary definition. For instance, a helpful editor changed all of the tenses in Portal:Law/Selected biographies/3 to the past tense when Justice Scalia died, but did not insert a date of death. Adding new content would also qualify: no new content has been added to the portal in a long time. And the usual: watching the portal (including all of its subpages) for vandalism. Any interest? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • On that note, by the way, I have proposed to merge Portal:English law into Portal:Law, on the theory that the combined content will be more substantial and less likely to merit deletion. bd2412 T 01:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"was a case" or "is a case"?

This may not be the best place to post, but I've been going over some of the cases on List of landmark court decisions in the United States and noticed that there doesn't seem to be consistency in whether to use "was a case" or "is a case". Obviously when the case is still open it should be "is", but I'm not sure if one is "more" correct than the other for cases that have been ruled. This probably applies to non-US court articles as well, I just haven't checked.

For example:

• Bolling v. Sharpe says "is a ... case" - decided in 1954
• Grutter v. Bollinger "was a ... case" - decided in 2003
• Taylor v. Louisiana "is a ... case" - decided in 1975

Is there a specific time to use each? If not, should there be?

— Frood (talk!) 01:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Cases included on WP would lead to this error (of omission), if not updated when closed. Seems fairly straightforward to stick with present and past tenses based on whether a case is closed, by verdict, settlement, or dismissal. Lindenfall (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing in the style guide on this. Not sure if this is relevant for law, but historians and others use present tense consistently when talking about the content of a text (e.g., Karl Marx argues in the 18th Brumaire of Napoleon III that @the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.") and the past tense when talking about events. See, for example https://gato-docs.its.txstate.edu/slac/Subject/Writing/Documentation-and-the-Writing-Process/Verb-Tense-for-Analysis-of-Literature-and-History/Verb%20Tense%20for%20Analysis%20of%20Literature%20and%20History.pdf . AugusteBlanqui (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Ideally one would avoid passive tense, as the authors/editors of List of landmark court decisions in the United States have done. (It is an excellent, well-written List btw.) ¶ Otherwise, I agree with AugusteBlanqui, partly because historians grapple with this question all the time. Also, most landmark cases are still "in effect", therefore present tense applies.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's probably worth looking at different supreme court decisions to see if they use the literary present tense. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Point well taken regarding a consistent present tense, though it may seem odd, in prose, to the reader. Lindenfall (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Outline Portal WikiProject

User:BD2412, or anyone,

How would you compare and contrast:

(1) Outline of law

(2) Portal:Law

(3) Wikipedia:WikiProject Law

(4) category:Law

(5) Law

(6) Template:Law

With regards to purpose, value to readers, value to editors, and maintenance cost, etc? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The topical problem is portals. For me, (2) attempts to look like the quality of (5) but fails hugely on quality. For navigation, it is very poor compared to (4) & (6), and (5) noting that (5) includes (6) and a link to (4). Does (1) do anything better than (6), I think no. I think (2) is a conceptual hodgepodge of (5) and (3). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In my 10 years on Wikipedia I have rarely visited Portal or Outline pages, and I can't remember ever returning to such pages. I don't find them useful. Thus, I agree with your well-reasoned argument SmokeyJoe.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

An outline, in any topic area, should be like a category tree trimmed of the branches that go beyond the topic area (for example, notable lawyers will appear in the law category tree, but are not themselves areas of law). It should be substantially deeper than the template. Note that it is difficult to display the entire category tree for any large supercategory, so users generally do not see this at all. The Portal should work more like the main page, but with the specific focus of law. The WikiProject doesn't need any of this content, as it is a backstage for creating and organizing content, not a display of content. bd2412 T 20:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian and SmokeyJoe:, I have revamped Portal:Law. What do you think of the current setup? bd2412 T 20:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Archibald Cornwall and Edinburgh's baillie court

Can someone please review the Archibald Cornwall article? It mentions "Edinburgh's baillie court", but I cannot find very few mentions of that entity. This is one of the few exceptions. It would be useful to know more about it, and the term "baillie court" in general. -- The Anome (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

No-go area

• No-go area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hello, the above article is currently undergoing discussion on the talk page. Your input would be appreciated! Elizium23 (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Outer space law

Hello. I am a scientist and a member of the WP Spaceflight Project. Lately I have been working on the legal issues regarding the commercial mining of lunar resources, which is about to happen but its regulation remains controversial. I made an effort at explaining the legal controversy while taking special care of avoiding bias to one side or the other. I received feedback and re-edited the material over several days. Now I would appreciate if somebody from this Project could please take a look at the two relevant sections dealing exclusively with the exploitation of natural resources for commercial profit -and correct any major mistake, misunderstandings or omission. The text is not long, as I aimed for brevity. The relevant sections in need of a quick check are:

1. Lunar resources#Legal status of mining
2. Outer Space Treaty#Key points (last paragraph of this section)

Thank you! Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about Alice S. Fisher article

I have a WP: COI for the article Alice S. Fisher as an employee of Latham & Watkins. There is a new discussion which may be of interest to members of this project located at: Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Fixing Unsourced Paragraph

JZ at LW (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Women in law in the United Kingdom

This article which I have quickly put together is ripe for expansion (to match/better its sister article (no pun intended) at Women in law in Canada) - please feel free to get involved. I have also created a Category:Women in law. GiantSnowman 13:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Monsanto legal cases needs help

Monsanto legal cases is a huge mess. It's an article worthy of some attention because it conveys interesting and important information. I know this area has been the subject of agenda editing in the past, but this article could be written in a totally neutral way, and it could be a good article with some reorganizing and good, efficient writing. Please pop over and improve the article. Minor4th 22:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Law since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see

I don't know which group is more active, but people here might be able to answer the question I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Remanded, and then what?. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson murder case article

More eyes are needed at O. J. Simpson murder case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

It has gotten progressively worse in recent months. In this section, I stated, "The article should be careful to not include every little thing, or everything in excessive detail. This is per WP:DIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not meant to give a blow-by-blow/day-by-day account of the trial. It's meant to sufficiently summarize what happened." Despite this, the article continues to be expanded with any and everything by one editor in particular. Different types of issues abound. I took the article off my watchlist, and have occasionally checked back. Like I stated, worse and worse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging John B123 and Girth Summit since I've seen them in the edit history of that article and am familiar with them. No need to ping me if either of you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, and thanks for the ping (unlike you, I like them - I don't understand how an editor as prolific as you can manage to keep abreast of discussions using just your watchlist, you must have one heck of a good memory!). I'm not sure how much use I can be in this case however - an edit cropped up on recent changes that looked dubious to me, so I checked the source and reverted when I saw it didn't support the assertion, but other than that I haven't had any involvement with it so far as I can recall. My familiarity with the case and the source material is almost non-existent - I remember it being in the news when it happened obviously, but that's about it - I don't think I'd be well-placed to do any clean-up work. In general terms I'd agree with you that this, as with any article, we should summarise the most important material from the most reliable sources, and should not be tempted to try to catalogue every tiny detail. Is there any particular material in there that you think might be in breach of BLP or similar, and needs to be expunged? Or is this more of a question of editorial judgment? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thanks for commenting. Keeping up with looking out for replies is a combination of being active enough to (usually) not forget to look for replies, using my watchlist, and checking where I last left off at via looking at my contributions. My main concern for the O. J. Simpson murder case article at the moment is what I stated above. Samsongebre keeps expanding and expanding the article with no end in sight. I don't know if Samsongebre is trying to force a spin-off article or what, but Samsongebre's previous spin-off was rejected. Samsongebre, if you reply in this section, I ask that you don't ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN has helped at times to reduce Samsongebre's material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree it's WAY too long and detailed. I'm going to cut it down significantly. It'll take a while.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have cut it down. Probably needs more but I have scythed through a decent amount.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, NEDOCHAN. I see that User-duck did some cleanup there as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Littoral rights

Littoral rights has been nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littoral rights). Can someone with Heinonline access plug in some content from the various law review articles discussing this topic? Cheers! BD2412 T 03:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing effort to improve Tasks list

I made some more edits to WikiProject Law/tasks (diff) in an ongoing effort to better organize and update the list. As I wrote on the Tasks talk page, developing a coherent, useful organizational scheme will benefit from other editors' input. So please jump in and edit. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. This is one of those nitty gritty tasks that are important, but not very interesting. I'm trying to do a little at a time (break it into small chunks) to gradually improve (organize & update) the page.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Excessively long block quotes

Hello,

In the course of doing some unrelated cleanup work, I have come across a number of law-related articles consisting mostly of big giant block quotes. For example:

• Partridge_v_Crittenden
• Morgan_v_Fry
• Constantine_v_Imperial_Hotels_Ltd
• Schmidberger_v_Austria
• Colin_Gwyer_&_Associates_Ltd_v_London_Wharf_(Limehouse)_Ltd
• VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp

And I'm sure there are many, many more. As far as I can see these follow the same basic pattern: a brief statement of which area of the law it is, sometimes an unsourced paragraph of the findings of fact, then an enormously gigantic block quote that seems to be the whole judgment copied and pasted. Very rarely is there any discussion of the significance of the case, explanations of what important precedent it set, or any indication at all that this is not just a run-of-the-mill unimportant legal ruling. As a layman, I get no value whatsoever out of these text dumps. Is this really the kind of content Wikipedia should be presenting? On some of the talk pages of the articles, I suggested trimming the text dumps back to a few relevant paragraphs. That was when I thought the problem affected only a handful of articles, but I see now that there are gajillions of them. Consider also Åklagaren v Fransson where, even after reading it all, I still have no way of knowing whether Fransson actually could face criminal charges after even after paying his tax fines. It's like these articles are written for insiders, not the average Wikipedia reader. Reyk _YO! 03:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Horror. Inc. v. Victor Miller

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone could help and give me input regarding this case, it has been ongoing for about 3 years now and has gotten a lot of media coverage, but I'm not sure what the notability guidelines regarding court cases are.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Help for the accessible Mueller report

The Internet Archive has a mission to turn every reference into a blue link on the Mueller report and similar documents: https://blog.archive.org/2019/07/19/the-mueller-report-now-with-linked-footnotes-and-accessible/

Contact them by email if you're interested in helping. I think it's possible to help in various ways: it might be archiving documents which are currently missing, programming, or simply editing work. Nemo 07:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Protection of the flag of Switzerland and the Red Cross

Hello

I'm creating an article about the Protection of the flag of Switzerland and the Red Cross. Because I had to answer some questions why the swiss flag is protected in special laws in some countries.

Because I'm not a law expert I could need some help. If somebody has more information or know of such laws in countries which aren't in my list pleas can you help me.

Thank you --Malo95 (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to Delete Paragraph Using Only a Primary Source

I’d request assistance with an independent review of a proposal at Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Proposal to Delete Paragraph Using Only a Primary Source regarding the use of a primary source in the description of a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. I have a COI as an employee of the law firm where the nominee now works. JZ at LW (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Court of Kazakhstan

Hi all! I'm new here. Nice to meet everyone! :) So I just read the article Supreme Court of Kazakhstan. It's quite short, so I wanted to improve it. Because it's about a portion of the legal system of a country, I thought this would be the right place to discuss it. My main question is: what sort of information would be appropriate to add to that article? I wrote my ideas at the talk page of that article. Talk:Supreme Court of Kazakhstan (I'm not sure if I should copy them here or not, I've decided not to for the moment.) Do you all think that my ideas seem reasonable? And what suggestions do you have for information to add to the article? Thanks for reading! :) JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenal Football Club vs. Matthew Reed

Comments welcome here. GiantSnowman 10:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Nature reserve, 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 00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Caselaw Access Project

FYI, a free resource from Harvard Law School Library.

The Caselaw Access Project (CAP) seeks to make all published U.S. court decisions freely available to the public online, in a consistent format, digitized from the collection of the Harvard Law Library.

• Search cases with an intuitive, powerful search engine interface.

• The API allows users to browse and download cases using a few short commands.

• Historical Trends lets you visualize the use of terms over time in caselaw.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Sherman Antitrust Act pages

I have proposed that the page for the steps of analysis regarding federal preemption be cleaned up to "good article" standards. If this is done then that page should be merged into the page about the Sherman Antitrust Act. 2602:306:311F:13B0:20E2:AAA5:A8EF:1D0 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Judge Judy GAR

Judy Sheindlin, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nole (chat·edits) 21:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox court "appealsto" parameter in state supreme court articles

While editing Iowa Supreme Court, I noted that the "appealsto" parameter states that appeals from that court go to the United States Supreme Court.

I think that's a stretch. There is no route to appeal from a state court-of-last-resort (usually but not always called "supreme court"). Sure, if the court is construing a question of federal law, a litigant can petition (not appeal) the US Supreme court, but the US Supreme Court does not have general appellate power over state courts.

I initially removed it from Iowa Supreme Court, but sampling other similar articles (e.g., Supreme Court of California, Idaho Supreme Court), that seems to be fairly consistently added. Rather than go off on a campaign to correct that, I thought I'd check in to see if that change would be against consensus (if for no other reason than to spare me the wasted time).

In the meantime, I have self-reverted on the Iowa article pending the discussion here. TJRC (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Company, 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, 2 March 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Battered woman syndrome vs. battered person syndrome

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Battered woman syndrome vs. battered person syndrome. A permalink for it is here. Please read the arguments before weighing in. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC has been opened to decide the question "Should the Battered woman syndrome and Battered person syndrome articles be merged so that the medical and legal aspects defined under the terms "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are covered in one article?". The RfC is at Talk:Battered woman syndrome #RfC: Should this article and the Battered person syndrome article be merged?. As one of the articles is within the scope of your WikiProject, you may wish to comment there. --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you do an AfC review?

If you can conduct an AfC (Articles for Creation) review of the draft article below, that would be awesome. :0)

Draft:M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual

I would have just published the article, since I am not a new editor. But I had inadvertently submitted the article for AfC review in 2018 (it was not accepted), therefore I thought it only proper to resubmit for AfC review.

While I believe the article meets notability criteria, it is not a long article.

Note: If you have not conducted an AfC review before, please read how to get involved and the reviewing instructions and then, if you believe you meet the criteria, add your name to the list of AfC participants. Make sure to use the AfC Helper Script (to install the script go to your user preferences and check the checkbox at: Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script).

Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 11:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

George Pell Case

There is currently a discussion as to whether or not the recent Australian High Court ruling in Pell v The Queen, either on its own, or collectively covering the various legal cases involving Cardinal Pell, should be covered in a stand alone article. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Project this week Justice delayed is justice denied

Your help would be appreciated. Nominated for a DYK.
Come on down. The water is fine. Questions? I'll give you my answer in 90 days. Or whenever? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Robert Garran FAR

I have nominated Robert Garran 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Who is Robert Garran and what does he have to do with the Superman featured article review? And how is WP:LAW involved? I'm confusled!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed above--> template parameter I failed to change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool - thanks SandyGeorgia. :-) ¶ Although it was accidental, I appreciated the mention of that Superman article - it is excellent! (long-time comics fan here)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:TITLE about court articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Parenthetical vs "of Country" disambiguation in courts, which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Alliance Defending Freedom

This RfC may be of interest to the members of this group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Legitimate and Forced heirship

Greetings from Switzerland,

Omnilaika02 and I are currently trying to establish a interwiki link for this this wpfr article on inheritance law with its wpen counterparts.

During his research, Omnilaika02 stumbled upon Legitimate and Forced heirship, seeming to have found our lucky winner.

We're aware that common law and civil law may differ on inheritance law, however, these two articles, in our eyes seem to be in most part redundant. The interwiki links for the aforementioned articles on wpit and wpde on both articles don't help understanding the dogmatic difference.

Can anyone with a legal background try to explain the difference, if there is one at all?

We'd be grateful. --ArkheinVonB (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

And note there seems to be a lot of confusion in the interwikis. fr:Réserve (droit) and fr:Réserve héréditaire (each linked to one of the enwp articles) are about the same concept, the content of the first one actually belonging in fr:Réserve héréditaire en France. Italian iw is confusing as well, it:Successione necessaria being hard-linked from Forced heirship. Any help would be very useful. Regards, Omnilaika02 (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID legal issues

Shelter-in-place vs. Stay-at-home

Finding good WP:RS on this subject isn't easy from using Google, findlaw, and legal dictionaries, and looking at some recent cases. However I did find this:

• Staff, N. L. C. (2020-03-30). "What's the Difference Between Shelter in Place, Safer at Home, and Stay Home Orders?". CitiesSpeak. Retrieved 2020-05-18.

These two articles are pretty weak and rely on newspaper reporting! Anyone with Westlaw or LexisNexis that can find a good law review article on the subject? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Nolo.com covers some of it, but, of course, without the useful citations:

• Barrett, Stacy. "Is Violating a Shelter-in-Place Order a Crime?". www.nolo.com. Retrieved 2020-05-18. [link corrected using whitelist 04:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)]

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• That appears to be a blocked link from here. BD2412 T 15:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• @BD2412: Indeed. I tried to get it fixed here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Nolo.com.

So I just filed this: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Nolo.com.

--David Tornheim (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed now. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Cases

I'm surprised there is no mention of all the litigation going on about the stay-at-home orders on the talk page here. A lot comes up from this search. I might be willing to work on an article about these kind of cases if someone is addressing them... I'll take a look at Wisconsin and see if it lands me at a generalized article. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It should be possible to find reporting on litigation arising from some of the 2019 measles lockdown orders in New York. BD2412 T 15:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'll take a look at that later. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Nolo.com -- really that bad?

I posted this at WP:RS/N:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#N_o_l_o_._c_o_m --David Tornheim (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed now after these discussions/requests:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Nolo.com
• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Nolo.com (permalink)

by whitelisting nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Would someone like to review my edits: Fixed Penalty Notice in the UK

I'm not very neutral on the issue, and may have violated the original research policy through synthesis. Also I'm not clear whether my edits belong here on in Tribunals in the UK or Civil Penalties or perhaps something to do with administrative law. I think the section discussing case law and the Bill or Rights might be particularly contentious. --Talpedia (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As a general suggestion, it would be helpful to others if you could use the 'Show Preview' button more often when editing pages, rather than 'Publish changes' so often. See H:PREVIEW, particularly, "Publishing the same article several times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history". Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I should probably get an editing environment set up.... but effort. What I really want is to be able to *save* my work (you'll have an individual sentence) that takes about 15 minutes of reading to make, and then see how my saved version differs from the current version. --Talpedia (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits related to Judicial College

So, I've made a few edits related to the "Judicial College" in the UK, and would like to give people an opportunity to give me some scrutiny. I have:

• Added a section talking about the Judicial College#Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases (for notability: I have referenced a legal case where a judge says that these guidelines are influential. If you go and search Bailii you will find the categories and terminology used in this book show up all over the place).
• Linked to the Judicial College from Judiciary of the United Kingdom (while in the process updating references)
• Linked to these guideliness from then Personal Injury page.

To be clear, I'm of the opinion that these particular guideliness constitute a civil code that is near enough part of the law and is being sold for profit by the Oxford University Press; that the lack of referencing may have been near enough deliberate so that this code could not be "verified" by judges, and that publication prevents the formation of reported case law because the process of assessing quanta is done by referring to this book (with vague categories and broad choices in payment) rather than creating case law, and that this vagueness will lead to unnecessary legal action (which does nothing because the cases won't be reported), and allows insurers to push down payments by creating uncertainty about the outcomes of cases. I also think the fact that this book is to some degree "hidden" by not being in the public domain by rather sold feeds into "ambulance chasing" and prevents individuals from making intelligent choices about the counsel they obtain for personal injury cases. So yeah, I'm not very neutral on this!

Of course, that's not what I put in my edits - but it does underlie some of my motivation for writing: that this publication and the details of its functioning should be easily visible.

--Talpedia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Caste-based prostitution

Child sexual abuse and child prostitution were listed as being involved with WikiProject Law, so I thought of bringing this up here. An article caste-based prostitution was removed, to be redirected to prostitution in india, where any mention of prostitution revolving around caste was also removed. The section mentioning about it in child sexual abuse and child prostitution was also removed by the same users, with reasons given that vary each time it is put back. The topic is about villages of certain caste groups that revolve around prostitution of females, often groomed from a young age and it cites The Guardian and Al Jazeera. I would genuinely appreciate your input this matter. JustBeCool (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is anyone interested, discussion to delete this article is here. JustBeCool (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC at Falun Gong

I'm not sure why this article is tagged as part of this Wikiproject, but there is a new RfC at Talk:Falun Gong#RfC on describing Falun Gong as a new religious movement. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Quo warranto

Assuming I have sources for everything at User:Psiĥedelisto/Quo warranto in the Philippines, (I do, I just haven't copied them in yet,) is this really proper as a separate article? Or should it be a section of quo warranto? I originally was planning to change Republic v. Sereno to link to it instead of the main quo warranto article, but now, i'm not sure. Maybe it's better to use {{see also}} ({{format link}}), i.e., as See also: Quo warranto § Philippines. Of course, this means that quo warranto needs fixing, because right now it's very...out-WP:GLOBAL. so, idk. The use in the Philippines is very legally bizarre and really not related to the common use worldwide, of this rare writ, so I think it might need its own article. See here for some sources (I wrote ≈65% of the page.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not it has its own article, I don't see why the information, as it currently stands, shouldn't appear on the main Quo warranto article. It's certainly not overburdened with content. CMD (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Advice needed at GirlsDoPorn

The history of GirlsDoPorn involved a lawsuit which awarded $12.75 million to women in damages, and I'm wondering how the article should discuss information from the lawsuit. Almost all the notable content about the company is the practices detailed by women in the lawsuit, or in some cases to news outlets. Initially I've gone with use of "alleged", "reported" or "according to X" wherever a potentially legally damaging claim is made, to make sure I'm complying with WP:BLP. However, I'd like to be using the minimal amount of qualifiers that is appropriate, because I think such qualifiers can undermine the realities of what the women involved experienced. What can we say on Wikipedia of claims made by plaintiffs in a case that was found in favour of them?

I'm also looking for help with the "Legal action" section because I'm not too familiar with the American legal system and I want everything to be correct. I don't know if there are legal sources rather than mainstream media sources that we could use here. Also, any cleanup and copyediting or any other improvements would be welcome. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I reviewed the "legal action" section and made a few minor edits to phrase things in a way that reflects certain quirks of the U.S. legal system. But it generally looks good, you did a particularly good job for someone who is not too familiar with the U.S. legal system as this stuff can be quite difficult to follow. Agreed, it would probably be better to have legal sources (e.g., complaints) but this is a good first stab! --- DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Tyrell Robinson

Please add your wisdom to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tyrell Robinson regarding his crimes and how we categorise. GiantSnowman 15:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Drafts for some noteworthy vaccine law cases

I have some drafts in various stages of construction for some noteworthy vaccine law cases:

• Draft:Caviezel v. Great Neck Public Schools (state can deny religious exemption to vaccination where it finds that petitioner's claim is not genuinely religious)
• Draft:Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs v. Sebelius (individuals can not challenge FDA determination that vaccine ingredients are safe; written by Brett Kavanaugh)
• Draft:Horvath v. City of Leander (accommodation for employee seeking exemption from vaccination on religious grounds was reasonable even though the employee would be inconvenienced by it)
• Draft:Phillips v. City of New York (state can bar vaccine-exempted students from school during an outbreak; people of the same religion can be treated differently based on their differing explanations of their objection to vaccination)
• Draft:Workman v. Mingo City Board of Education (state is not constitutionally required to provide religious exemption from vaccination)

If anyone wants to dig into these, I would appreciate the help. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Constitution of the United Kingdom

We are seeking editors to collaborate on improving the Level-5 vital article Constitution of the United Kingdom. There is further discussion on Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom. Welcome any editors who are interested in getting involved, and grateful for any contributions, large or small. 12:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Listing of state executive orders in the US

Hi, I’m MrSwagger21. I created the article State executive order. I was wondering, in the same way that we have a List of United States federal executive orders should Wikipedia have lists of state executive orders by governors? For example, there could be an article titled List of executive actions by Ron DeSantis or List of executive actions by Andrew Cuomo. State executive orders have the same, if not greater, impact on US citizens as federal executive orders. I understand this might be tedious to do for all 50 states, but with enough interested Wikipedians, this could become a reality. MrSwagger21 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a single list of the most notable executive orders (the ones that have made national news) with a section for each state that has such orders. BD2412 T 15:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)