Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Citations with a lot of cases

• Illegal removal of people from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Afghan immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Cambodian immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Americans from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I get a 2nd opinion about the citation style in these articles? My gut instinct is that long citations citing so many cases is a red flag for WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Too much WP:PRIMARY, not enough WP:SECONDARY. But I'd like confirmation. cc User:EvergreenFir as I saw you post on a talk page and you seem knowledgeable about law. cc User:Libracarol as the author of some of these articles. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Too much WP:PRIMARY, not enough WP:SECONDARY."??? The Supreme Court of the United States and United States courts of appeals are "secondary reliable sources" for Wikipedia purposes. They issue opinions that are authored by acclaimed American scholars (judges who have master's in American law). "[NOR] is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles." [1] OR and SYNTHESIS are about Wikipedia editors making up their own unsourced conclusions but I'm obviously not doing that. It's what the Board of Immigration Appeals says I cite, and it's what the highest U.S. courts say I cite. These are official U.S. government publications authored by well-known American scholars and lawyers with master's assigned to interpret U.S. laws.--Libracarol (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I only looked at this article for a couple of minutes atDeportation of Americans from the United States and I find several problems. A inline citation citing US v Lanier doesn't corroborate the sentence it is being used for. Also two of the people listed under 'Physically removed Americans from the United States' weren't removed from the United States unless Houston seceded from the union while none of us were looking. This article definitely has issues....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That article is about something possible, and how the law deals with such a situation. It's not really about individual cases, and US v. Lanier is merely used as a "note" for the Wikipedia readers to understand 18 USC § 242.--Libracarol (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That's WP:OR because the case has nothing to do with the sentence it is on. Just like the mention of a comedy in the article without any referencing for it. Oh and there is your quotation from President Clinton. The top reference for it is fine, the three subcitations under it aren't. As I said above, this article has issues....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Saying in an article that Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States is not OR. Similarly, saying that a deported U.S.-born citizen can enter the U.S. without permission from the government is not OR. The cases under President Clinton's cited quotation provide extra knowledge as to why he would make such a statement. They're helpful to readers (but not required) because US immigration laws are extremely difficult to understand by ordinary people. Even judges have tough time understanding them and they often remind us that. So when they make a bad decision in an immigration-related case it's because of that.--Libracarol (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Citing many primary sources isn't a great article writing style. It is overwhelming to the reader (example: the size and complexity of the citation sections), it introduces problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and not using secondary sources introduces problems with WP:UNDUE. It is better to find one good secondary source (law review, textbook) that says exactly what you are citing, and cite that once, than to cite 5 cases. Wrapping our head around these particular policies and writing style can take time, but is important for writing good encyclopedia articles. In general, Wikipedians would prefer to have smaller articles that follow these principles, than large articles that are full of problems. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The basic rule us Wikipedians follow is to present to readers accurate and verifiable information. I understand your concern and I've been following that rule about reducing the notes and references, and in the future I'll make these articles cite mostly Supreme Court cases that are directly on point. But law reviews and textbooks, which could be written by anti-Americans, are not the answer because they're not authoritative when compared to Supreme Court published opinions, which are not primary sources as you view them. The primary source is the Congress who actually wrote the statute. The Supreme Court interprets that statute and their interpretation is binding on all of us even if they're wrong.--Libracarol (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure I'd be backed up by many other attorneys and law students when I say that law reviews and textbooks ... are not the answer because they're not authoritative when compared to Supreme Court published opinions just isn't the way the law works. There are plenty of times that law professors have to interpret or teach a certain perspective on a SCOTUS opinion, because there are innumerable confusions, unclear balancing tests, and loopholes even in the written work of (allegedly) the most authoritative justices in the country. They may be binding in the legal sense yes, but just by nature of how the law works they cannot be the authoritative source on how their decisions are actually implemented: SCOTUS renders a decision, and then courts/agencies/advocates around the country integrate it into their analysis and doctrine. Ignoring law reviews and textbooks completely ignores step 2 of that process. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring law reviews and textbooks. The issue is which is more reliable and acceptable. Novem Linguae thinks Justices of the Supreme Court are not as reliable as people who write books are, but anyone can write a book and publish it. In such situations we must choose the Supreme Court.--Libracarol (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry--and I understand why this isn't intuitive--but that's simply wrong. Novem Linguae is saying that court decisions and case law are examples of WP:PRIMARY sources, whereas treatises, journals, and reviews are WP:SECONDARY sources, and as a general rule Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Types of sources for a decent summary of the relationship between different types of legal sources. I can't speak to exact hypotheticals you reference (In such situations we must choose...) without more details, but as a general rule we shouldn't cite directly to court cases, unless we need to reference the actual text of a decision. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you read reference #5 at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Types of sources? Those are court decisions about events. The part about court opinions being primary was added in 2019 [2] by User:Nick Levinson and based on this: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (law)#If caselaw is a primary source.... For purposes of Wikipedia, a published US Supreme Court opinion is exactly like a law journal written by a group of acclaimed legal scholars. The only difference is the source of publication, one is the U.S. government (GPO) while the other is usually a university. If you think that a published US Supreme Court opinion is a primary source then so is every law review and textbook.--Libracarol (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Between pushing back on not using cases as references, and reverting my fairly mild edits, I do not feel like you are taking our concerns seriously. I will be taking this issue to the original research noticeboard. The thread is Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Legal articles: citing too many cases. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Libra is reverting my edits too and threatening[3] to take me to WP:ANI. I said be ready for a WP:Boomerang if they do....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that anything coming from a court is WP:PRIMARY. Would need a textbook, law review, etc. to be WP:SECONDARY. WikiProject Law members, please correct me if I'm wrong. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. That very issue was cited when many South African law cases were discussed recently and most of them were only citing court documents....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Libracarol original research. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup

There's been some discussion about cleanup here now that Libracarol has been tbanned as a result of the ANI thread, but I figure it's worth flagging this here as well since there are likely more interested editors: I've created a list of all articles that Libracarol contributed significantly too, and any help stubifying those or trimming problematic citations would be greatly appreciated. Remove or strike through entries on that list once you'd checked them. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for same-sex marriage in Spain

I have nominated Same-sex marriage in Spain 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. (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect: General pardon -> Amnesty

I would create a redirect from general pardon to amnesty, only there might be enough of a difference between the terms (specifically regarding oblivion) that either a redirect would be inappropriate, or clarification regarding both terms would be required at the page amnesty. Alternatively, general pardon might redirect to pardon, and/or its definition could be given at the page pardon, or general pardon could disambiguate amnesty and pardon, explaining the difference. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Britannica informs me that "Technically, however, an amnesty differs from a general pardon in that the latter simply relieves from punishment whereas the former declares innocence or abolishes the crime." (That technical distinction doesn't seem to be used too often in practice: Proclamation 4483, for instance, is often referred to as amnesty even though it was formally a general pardon.) I think redirecting to amnesty would be the best option; feel free to briefly explain the difference in that article if you're so inclined. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Black’s Law Dictionary says an amnesty is sometimes referred to as a general pardon, and its definition of “general pardon” just says “See amnesty,” so that would support the case for a redirect. John M Baker (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. I have created the redirect. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for FAC reviews

The Edict of Torda, the first law to sanction the existence of a radical denomination in Europe, is currently a FA candidate and it needs comprehensive reviews. Thank you for your time and work. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Individuals interested in

...American criminal law, esp. cases involving the death penalty, cases originating in the Texas court system, cases resulting in commutation of sentence, etc.: please see the Thomas Bartlett Whitaker article, and the request for legal expertise made in the "Expert needed" tag, and on that article's Talk page (latest entry there).

The article minimally needs help clarifying how to identify and present the several unpublished and published cases associated with this individual, including how they should be correctly cited (see the chronological case list section). Also, in the long term, it needs some one or ones to take responsibility for the article, so that it moves toward reliance on secondary legal sources, rather than just on popular reporting on proceedings and orders in local and regional newspapers (best current sourcing), or solely on WP:OR by Wikipedia editors reading the primary sources/case records (worst current sourcing). Look in, interested parties, and decide how to parse all this work? Cheers and HNY. [a frmr prof] 2601:246:C700:558:D87:7AFA:6C0D:481A (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)==

Video game copyright cases

I have been working on several video game cases and I would like to request some help if anyone is available. Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. is based on research that focuses on its influence on video game case law but they all miss the obvious point that this case was settled, and this was only a motion. Even though the notability of this case is based in its impact on the case law it would seem like a big omission to not explain the impact on the legal dispute itself. Does anyone know where I might be able to find some research to support this basic fact? (I also have two other cases nominated for good articles and I think they are pretty good: Atari v. Amusement World and Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.) Jorahm (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin)

Would somebody else please take a look. I am having problems getting through as to the difference between in rem and in personam jurisdiction. I am sending but it is not being understood. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to acknowledge and thank the excellent work of a couple of this project's contributors —User:JBchrch and User:John M Baker — in clearing up the legal issue. But, the beat goes on. I've done all that I can. I violated WP:COAL, but not by choice. And from my viewpoint WP:Dead horse would apply, and it is now time for me to let others participate and decide. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom § Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom table markup

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom § Category:Lists of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom table markup. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:NPOVN#Is proposed addition an opinion or a fact

This might depend on that it comes from a sworn statement for a court case. Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Work begins on Traffic Stop case law (United States)

Hi all, I have begun work on the Traffic stop case law article. This will be similar to the Terry stop case page and the Consent search case law page. I will create a draft sooner rather than later. It currently resides on my sandbox. KhiVoh (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Help: Content removal based on WP:LEGAL threat

Content is entirely removed at Bhavana and censored at Dileep based on WP:LEGAL threat: IPC Section 228A.

At Dileep: Name of the crime victim (Bhavana) is censored. Victim's name is NOT censored in any articles in Wikipedia, as per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. There are many sources that mentions Dileep and Bhavana in connection with the same case, see [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].

At Bhavana: Here, the existence of the incident itself is erased from history. The excuse they use is 1(b) of Terms of Use, but nowhere does it instructs to remove content that violate any local laws. Instead, it is written for those who comes under the ambit of those local laws, that those editors should be cautious as the local authorities may apply their laws on the editor if he/she resides under that jurisdiction, even though Wikipedia "may not agree with such actions". The thing is, Wikipedia does not comes under Indian jurisdiction. Why should an Australian or Sri Lankan care about Indian law to edit Wikipedia which is hosted in the U.S.? Wikipedia is definitely above Indian law.

WP:NOTCENSORED clearly states: "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)", not Indian law. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". So, it cannot be censored.

Beside, if you check the above sources, the actress herself has came out publicly identifying as victim, and again, Wikipedia is NOT censored. Administrators and legal experts should interfere here to resolute this. Please help. 2409:4073:302:A00E:9C1F:B458:FA2:F2E1 (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like the attempt to censor has already been reverted by Orangemike [12] ☆ Bri (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Leading Counsel

Learned colleagues, I was surprised by the destination of Leading Counsel. Should it at least have a hatnote and, if so, to where? The least bad target I can find is Queen's Counsel, though of course counsel can also lead in countries lacking a queen. See also Leading. Certes (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Attempted something here [13]. Feel free to tweak or override. JBchrch talk 00:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Legal Advisor (Poland)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Legal Advisor (Poland) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Lawyers in Poland. Definitely a language problem (attorney, counselor, barrister, solicitor, advocate, and their Polish equivalents) involved in finding sources. Question about this being a topic fork? I know very little about this subject in this jurisdiction. Nie rozumiem języka polskiego. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Request for comment on removal of prefix "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty"
		Contested and attempted removal of the prefix "Islamic" from "Islamic death penalty", which is construct used as a pipe for the wikilink Capital punishment in Islam and as phrase remains unreferenced. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Federal Constitutional Law (Austrian act)#Requested move 26 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Federal Constitutional Law (Austrian act)#Requested move 26 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Need help reviewing a new article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Product_Safety_in_the_Cannabis_Industry

I created a new article and wondered if someone in the Cannabis WikiProject can review the article. It's in queue with over 1000 articles and this is important to occupational health and hazards with new cannabis and product safety. Any suggestions or senior editors who can help? Thanks! I'm not a new Wikipedian but new to the space of writing about product safety re: Cannabis. sheridanford (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone help move the Commons Template:Infobox copyright rules to Wikipedia?

I've noticed that our articles on copyright by territory don't have infoboxes, but perfectly good ones exist on commons. Compare: Copyright law of the United States vs Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States (it's the second box on the page, not the top table one), using commons:Template:Infobox copyright rules. Can anyone copy that functionality to Wikipedia? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Need help at Talk:Emmett Till Antilynching Act#Recent edits

There is a discussion about the Emmett Till Antilynching Act that could use more input. Please do come help improve this article, and potentially join the discussion linked in title. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Haaland v. Brackeen

I've expanded this article to reflect the 5th Circuit panel and en banc opinions, and submitted a GAN on it. If anyone could take a look, I would be appreciative. GregJackP Boomer! 08:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Fake News Laws

The article Russia fake news law should be renamed and splitted. There are too many "fake news" laws in Russia. Let me list some of these legal acts:

• the Federal Law of 18 March 2019 №31-FZ allowing Roskomnadzor to block the access to any online media in case of revealing a "unreliable news".
• the Federal Law of 1 April 2020 №100-FZ that criminalized a dissemination of unreliable information about circumstances that threat to life and health of a citizens including epidemic, natural and technological disasters, emergency, and measures to ensure the security.
• the Federal Laws of 4 March 2022 №31-FZ and of 4 March 2022 №32-FZ that criminalized the dissemination of unreliable information (any information from non-governmental sources) about the use of Russian Armed Forces, and the discrediting of Russian Armed Forces and its operations, including the calls for prevention of the use of Russian Armed Forces for interests of Russian Federation.

To avoid confusion, I suggest the following:

• to rename the article Russia fake news law into "Russian 2019 Fake News Law" devoted to the Federal Law of 18 March 2019 №31-FZ
• to move the section "New law" of the article Russia fake news law into separate article "Russian 2022 Laws Prohibiting Anti-War Statements and Establishing War Censorship" devoted to the Federal Laws of 4 March 2022 №31-FZ and of 4 March 2022 №32-FZ
• to create the article "Russian 2020 COVID-19 Fake News Law" devoted to the Federal Law of 1 April 2020 №100-FZ

Something like this. K8M8S8 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956#Requested move 10 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Juris Doctorate" vs "Juris Doctor"

I first noticed an IP changing "Juris Doctorate" vs "Juris Doctor" on this article. The source used in the article says "Juris Doctorate", so I changed it back to match the source (and it redirects to Juris Doctor, anyway) per WP:NOTBROKEN. Today, I noticed that that IP (2601:205:3:dee2::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is apparently on a mission to change all instances of "Juris Doctorate" to "Juris Doctor" with their latest edit summaries of I have changed Juris Doctorate to Juris Doctor. The actual name of the degree in Latin is Juris Doctor. Juris is Latin (with no exact English equivalent, “Jurisprudence” and “Law” both being inexact translations of Juris). Doctor is both Latin and English, and Doctorate is English. There is no therefore such degree as the Juris Doctorate. Using this term is like referring to an Artium Baccalaurens or Bachelor of Arts as a Baccalaureus of Arts. I really don't care either way and I don't really know the difference, either, so I'd thought I'd ask the experts here to weigh in. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Both are correct. My law degree from Texas A&M is a Juris Doctor. However, the Board of Law Examiners, who give the bar exam, require a "Certification of Juris Doctorate Decree" in order for someone to sit for the bar. I would change it back and make him seek consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 17:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging Edwardx as it seems he has reverted a few of the IP's edits. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Michigan Law, from which the honorable gentleman is a graduate, calls its JD program "Juris Doctor" [14] and its Office of Career Planning specifically recommends against the use of "Juris Doctorate" [15]. JBchrch talk 18:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

My principal reason for reverting "Juris Doctor" to "juris doctorate" was the issue with capitalisation, in line MOS:JOBTITLES. Thinking about the global context, "juris doctor" seems rather American. In the UK, we have LLB and LLM, rather than JD degrees. A JD degree is NOT a doctorate, and is closer to a master's level degree. I think "juris doctor" might be somewhat misleading in any event to those not familiar with the law degree system in countries where it is the standard law degree. Yet, "juris doctorate" risks being even more misleading, as it is not at a PhD or DPhil level. Perhaps "juris doctor degree"? Edwardx (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Edwardx I don't really understand what's the connection to JOBTITLES, but that's beyond the point. To reach consensus, we could draw from one of the standard languages used in the biographies of US Senators and write Sifton earned a J.D. degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1999. However, I should point out that the use of "Juris Doctor" is very widespread on the project, and also that it's the actual name of the degree all around the US, and completely accepted in the mainstream, such that the risk of confusion is extremely low. (Just like PhDs are not necessarily about philosophy for instance.) JBchrch talk 19:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch A search for "J.D. degree" returns 1,764 results (i.e. it is widely used here), and I agree that that or "JD degree" seems to be the best formulation. And it neatly sidesteps the doctor/doctorate issue. Edwardx (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Juris Doctor is the far more frequently used term outside the US (Canada, Australia etc). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

2601:205:3:DEE2:644E:4912:DCAF:5DA8 (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC) https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/professional.doc&usg=AOvVaw3rCX_P2vOuNHuTFyV6ogmf "The U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) discontinued use of the term 'First Professional Degree' as of its 2010-11 data collection. For the Doctor degrees referenced below, NCES now uses the term 'Doctor's degree-professional practice.' ... Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.) Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.) Doctor of Dental Science (D.D.S.) or Doctor of Dental Medicine (D.M.D.) Doctor of Jurisprudence or Juris Doctor (J.D.) Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) Doctor of Optometry (O.D.) Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine/Osteopathy (D.O.) Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) Doctor of Physical Therapy (D.P.T.) Doctor of Podiatric Medicine/Podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., or Pod.D.) ... Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.)"

2601:205:3:DEE2:644E:4912:DCAF:5DA8 (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)"A JD degree is NOT a doctorate, and is closer to a master's level degree." Indeed, most people use the term "doctorate" to refer to research doctor's degrees. However, as the lengthy quotation above indicates, the United States government now classifies D.D.S., J.D., M.D., and other professional degrees with Doctor in their name as "Doctor's degree-professional practice," in contrast to "Doctor’s degree-research/scholarship." https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/report-your-data/data-tip-sheet-reporting-graduate-awards These professional doctor's degrees take longer than a Masters, but take less time than Ph.D., and might be thought of as lesser doctor's degrees.

Please improve Steele dossier#Litigation

At Steele dossier#Litigation we seek to document various lawsuits related to the dossier, its author Christopher Steele, and other entities. It would be nice if legal experts could improve this content, for example by adding the correct numbers for each case, making things chronological, and making other improvements.

The latest case has not been added: Donald Trump sues Hillary Clinton over 2016 Russian collusion allegations. -- Valjean (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Cant remember the name

What's the term for the right of the state to sue in defense of its citizens (e.g. against criminals) as a protector/"father" of them? I can't remember and it's annoying me to have it on the tip of my tongue. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: Parens patriae? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Extraordinary Writ! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal notice

An editor has requested for General assignment to be merged into Assignment (law). Since you had some involvement with General assignment or Assignment (law), you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). SpuriousCorrelation 22:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

FLRC for List of Computer Criminals

I have nominated List of computer criminals for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Free license#undefined

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Free license#undefined that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 07:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation links to Civil law

Could you help to disambiguate some of the 38 links to Civil law shown in this list. I think most should either go to Civil law (common law) or Civil law (legal system) but I am not expert enough to know which.— Rod ^talk 17:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Alyo (chat·edits) 18:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant - thank you.— Rod ^talk 19:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Russian war crimes

A move of Russian war crimes ⟶ Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity has been proposed. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Russian war crimes#Requested move 6 April 2022. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Annexation of the Jordan Valley#Requested move 23 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Annexation of the Jordan Valley#Requested move 23 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 07:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Accurate News and Information Act

I have nominated Accurate News and Information Act 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Help needed at ongoing trial article!

’’Depp v Heard’’, a new article on an ongoing, highly publicized trial in VA, US needs input from editors. In particular, what is needed is help in defining the legal arguments and for general editing related to the evidence heard in trial and other ongoing developments. Thank you! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Use of force by states#Requested move 10 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Use of force by states#Requested move 10 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Law on Elimination of Sexual Violence#Requested move 12 April 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Law on Elimination of Sexual Violence#Requested move 12 April 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on Marcelo Kohen

Hello everyone. RfC available for comment for Marcelo Kohen (Professor of International Law at IHEID Geneva and Secretary-General of the Institut de Droit International, the oldest international law association and Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1904), for whom surprisingly there was no Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Marcelo_Kohen

Thank you!

--Pugliese23 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.

Good opportunity to expand from a redirect, if anyone is interested. Getting some coverage right now based on the mask mandate court action in the US. [16] « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion started at Template talk:English law#"Related systems"

I have started the above-noted discussion to move the countries in "Related systems" to their own separate template box for common law countries (which I think is a better descriptor than "related systems" to English law. This was prompted by a discussion at Talk:Law of Canada. Singularity42 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Taking Griswold v. Connecticut to GA?

Hi! Seeing as how it will be nonstop discussed in global journalism and political races in the US, I was wondering if there were editors interested in taking this article to GA level. The more informed the public debate on this issue the better the decisions that will be taken. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 07:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested. My time varies wildly based on work but I've been looking to take a legal article to GA for a bit now. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The Precedent article needs more citations

Stare decisis redirects to the Precedent article. The news coverage of the release of a US Supreme Court draft decision apparently reversing Roe v. Wade will draw a lot of attention to stare decisis & I expect we will now get a lot of traffic to the article. Although I often concentrate on improving citations, I am personally unknowledgeable about law & legal sources. I am hoping to prevail upon WP:LAW members to help remedy this situation.

@Hairy Dude: you were the one to place the {{refimprove}} template. Do you have anything to add? Peaceray (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll contribute in the coming days. Muttnik talk 15:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Covered entities and anti-discrimination law

One of my (many ;-)) pet peeves is people claiming that their HIPPA rights have been violated by family members blabbing about their medical information or friends asking whether they've been vaccinated against COVID.

I have been hearing similar lines of error around Anti-discrimination law during the last couple of years. People want to have Caste covered by US discrimination laws, because (the example I heard most recently) some low-status people have been asked not to touch the food at a dinner party. Under US law, that would still be legal (unless it was an employment-related event and not actually a party). I've heard similar errors about LBGTQ efforts (e.g., that when same-sex marriage became legal, then bigoted neighbors would no longer reject them).

What I haven't been able to find is a decent source that explains this wrt to discrimination law. These laws prevent (in the US, anyway) the government, your employer, your bank, and a few others from engaging in certain forms of discrimination. They don't (in the US, at least) make your neighbor invite you to their private parties or be a basically decent human being. Can anyone find such a source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Are you looking for something about strictly American law or something more global/comparative? Just as a note—if you're looking at American law perhaps the keyword "civil rights" will give you more hits than "discrimination". JBchrch talk 14:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd much rather have something global/comparative, but I'm willing to settle for US law if we can't find something better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, we have an article on Public accommodations in the United States, which I think is basically what you're looking for: the idea that discrimination laws generally apply only to facilities that serve the public. This article in The Atlantic might be also helpful; it notes that "No law, state or federal, forbids 'discrimination' generally....Any type of private discrimination is legal unless a state or federal law specifically forbids it. Civil-rights laws prohibit discrimination on certain grounds, and they specify what activities they apply to. The most common areas of civil-rights protections are employment, housing, and 'public accommodations,' which refers to places like hotels and restaurants." I'm not terribly familiar with other countries' civil rights laws, so perhaps someone can weigh in on that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I've read that article in The Atlantic twice now, and I am so happy that you told me about it. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of leaked abortion case opinion

Is it appropriate to add details on reactions to content of the leaked Dobbs opinion beyond the President and nation-wide protests? Please respond at Talk:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization#Gertner-Reinstein opinion. -- Beland (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

LegalShield COI edit requests

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:LegalShield. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! JZindler (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Establishment Clause case law

Hi, simple question for the attorneys here: what is the requirement for this category? For example, I’m not sure all the cases in Category:Ten Commandments are also members of Establishment Clause case law. Is it okay to add them or does this category have specific requirements? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge

Should legal status be merged into legality? Are they the same subject? The legal status feels like a WP:PERMASTUB to me. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

While it may always be a short article, it has it's own meaning and should probably stand independent. I'll see what I can add. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alyo Thanks! PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

False statement in defamation

When referring to the article False statement I was curious to find no content on Defamation despite this article saying that: Defamation is the communication of a false statement... Could any of you legal brains that understand this stuff have a look at this? GregKaye 12:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Changes to Mental Health Act 1983

Hey. I've been making some changes to Mental Health Act 1983. This has mostly consisted of:

• Adding tables summarizing different sections or holding periods.
• Adding information about informal patients / voluntary patients
• Linking to relevant case law.

More generally, my aim is to add information relevant to:

• the individual who is incorrectly or marginally coerced or controlled through the act.
• the individual who risks long term harm as a result of others use of the act, or threats based upon it

I am aware of some stylistic tensions here. So I'm giving people a heads up here if they would like to provide feedback. Talpedia (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Primary source reference as neutral

Pinging members that have recently joined the law project with hope they can field a query or advise on ways to take it further.

@Pennsylvania2, S.shedore, Duke of Somewhere, Trolligarch, Semanticz0, Тежава, EuanHolewicz432, CaptainEek, MKT92, Such-change47, Dberg2, Aarf613, Critical Hippo, and Solipsism 101:

Hi legal brains, (if you feel its been answered or if this isn't your thing, feel free to ignore).

I've been doing an overhaul on the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article, so far taking the Verdict section from this to this all without complaint. When tackling another matter elsewhere an editor pointed to the fact that I'd been editing with significant use of the main WP:Primary source material (Justice Nicol's Judgement) which got me wondering about my approach.

Perhaps the most significant changes related to the development of section Alleged domestic abuse incidents perpetrated by Depp to Alleged violent incidents (with that title being chosen to match the subtitle previously used in the Background section of the article, Alleged violent incidents)

My impression working through was that there had been biases perhaps based references that secondary sources had chosen as reference or that editors had chosen to cite and my argument is that a work through references from the Judgement paper to make up their own minds. The material is proven to be WP:Notable by the fact that appears in RS and, on that platform, I've referred back to Primary Source.

I'm asking whether or not this is a positive and warranted approach to take or not.

GregKaye 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@GregKaye Wikipedia prefers secondary sources whenever possible. Legal articles are sometimes an exception, since many key cases aren't broken down very thoroughly in the literature. But most notable cases should have enough coverage out there. Since anything Depp related got a real frenzy of media coverage, you shouldn't need to rely on the primary source hardly at all. The danger in using primary literature from the court is that it requires a lot of legal understanding to parse correctly, oftentimes requires extra context, and even the court can be biased. Thus unless strictly necessary, rely on secondary sources. The best are law review articles, but I didn't find any about this case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, my understanding is that a court opinion is a secondary source (though not necessarily a good one) as to the facts of the case and the existing law, and a primary source (though not necessarily a bad one) as to the court's own holding and reasoning. See WP:PSTS ("A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one"). Since we have access to the actual judgement (yay!), in principle I think the ideal thing would be to use that to evaluate specific independent secondary sources for reliability and POV, and to use those reliable sources to shape the coverage in the article, with just a reasonable smattering of quotes and citations to the judgement. Given the pressures on this sort of momentarily high-visibility topic, I can understand why you went with this approach, but I think ideally the article would not rely so directly and heavily on the judgement itself. (On a likely irrelevant side note, I would respectfully dissent from the above claim that law review articles are broadly "the best"; the situation is somewhat variable worldwide, and as far as I know UK law journals are generally fine, but most US law review articles are not peer-reviewed and should be handled with considerable care as to anything controversial.) -- Visviva (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there are a few views on this: 1) Referencing from primary legal material (judgments or legislation) is very different to historic or political primary sources as it is less likely to express a bias and is highly authoritative; however 2) Wiki may not trust editors to make informed readings from authoritative legal sources as it doesn’t have a good certainty that writers are qualified lawyers/informed/correct - secondary sources make this easier as the writer is reviewably an authority themselves; however (again) 3) Many secondary legal sources are rubbish (such as legal reporting in the enws) and these sources are often notably erroneous.

So my personal view is that the standardised approach to primary sources is not effective for legal content, but reference to authoritative legal secondary sources (journal articles, law gazette, government commentary or reports) offers the best of both worlds. MKT92 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

*news MKT92 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. It seems like it would be a good idea to have something (maybe just an essay) on how WP:RS operates in legal topics. -- Visviva (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you your noble Honourables, CaptainEek, Visviva and MKT92

On Visviva's, "the ideal thing would be to use that to evaluate specific independent secondary sources for reliability and POV" I confess to lacking confidence that editors may always achieve that ideal of NPOV.

On MKT92's "Many secondary legal sources are rubbish" Currently, at Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd#References, citations are from (deep breath): ACLU, BBC/BBC News*5, Canadian Broadcasting Cinemablend, Corporation*2, CNET, CNN, Deadline Hollywood*5, Entertainment Weekly*2, The Guardian*15, The Hollywood Reporter*2, The Independent*3, Insider, The Irish Examiner, The Irish Times, ITV News11, LA Times*2, London Evening Standard, The New York Times*2, People*2, Press Gazette*4, Refinery29, Reuters*4, Sky News*3, The Sun (obviously), USA Today*2 and Variety*4. I'd appreciate specific pointers to relevant papers pertinent to the case (though acknowledging that I am a lowly muggle beside your great Grindelwaldlinesses). On "1) Referencing from primary legal material (judgments or legislation) is very different to historic or political primary sources as it is less likely to express a bias and is highly authoritative; however 2) Wiki may not trust editors to make informed readings from authoritative legal sources as it doesn’t have a good certainty that writers are qualified lawyers/informed/correct - secondary sources make this easier as the writer is reviewable an authority themselves;" I'm wondering whether it's best to stick with the primary sources as I've so far done at Alleged violent incidents, whether I should return to the popular RS as currently used or if there's some other documents you could point me to. An even cursory view on how you think it's going so far could also help. GregKaye 20:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ho, hum, just got a ping that my work's been reverted. GregKaye 21:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Well for starters, probably because you included an incredibly large amount of material. Wikipedia articles need to be of a reasonable length. Second,I'm not really sure what using the Judges writing achieves over just using press coverage? Like, the press have done the hard work of figuring out what is notable, so why not just rely on that? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A positive-sum solution might be for each sentence about what the court said to be supported by citations to both a secondary source and the opinion (perhaps with a quote embedded in the citation template rather than directly in the article text). That's what I was thinking of in terms of letting the secondary sources shape our coverage. But that's double the work and some people wouldn't like it either. Kudos for putting in the effort, anyway. As for me, I don't want to go anywhere near that article. -- Visviva (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a thought but maybe the solution is to raise the standard on Secondary Sources for something this controversial. That's the method I have taken on other legal articles where uninformed journalists are mostly just reacting to whatever piece is the most salacious. A lot of them are not really reacting to the lawsuit per se but to the news and scandal, and it would be good to privilege sources with a higher reputation for legal analysis. Jorahm (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jorahm. In general, our best practice is to always use the highest quality source available. Sometimes you only have meh journalism to go on. But when you have a lot of coverage, and you have a choice between the Daily Mail or the NY Times, the choice is obvious. If you ever need access to a certain source, there are lots of editors with subscriptions to the major newspapers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, CaptainEek, Visviva and MKT92, update and hopefully minor question (and thanks).

1. I think I achieved a system that will supply readers with desired reference that I wanted by filling out citation refs with result of the reference section going from this (with many of the to be edited refs from #98-109) to this. Here goes:
   1. Are "Particulars" and "Judgement" appropriate reverences? The Defence (NGN) raised 14 alleged violent incidents listed both under the title The defence of truth: the Particulars on which the Defendants rely and the Claimant's reply (from para 45) and following a close to a paragraph (205) which says, ...this is a civil, not a criminal case, I shall follow this guidance. The two sets of wording I've used in the citations is: Depp v NGN & Wootton (2020), Particulars: Incident #: title, para #-# and Depp v NGN & Wootton (2020), Particulars: Judgement #: title, para #-#. Any suggestions?
   2. The article list has subsections on the incidents in two article locations, under >Background >Defence... >? and under >Judgement >? Currently I've edited titles both to read Alleged violent incidents (perpetrated by Depp). Due to the difference between the UK and US trials, I thought it useful to present titles in a similar way but, for the sake of readers, it could help readers if the titles had some difference. Is that something that can be done in a not so obstructive way?

edit: also, which section at lawsociety.org.uk/../research-guides/how-to-find-law-reports or elsewhere is best used for Wikipedia relate materials? GregKaye 05:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

As to (1) ‘particulars’ tend to refer to the content of the claimant’s allegation and not the defence. At least in England and Wales, there is a widely held convention that the judicial statement on the result of a court case is a ‘judgment’ not ‘judgement’. Though a judge may nonetheless express her judgement on the quality of a particular argument in her judgment.

I will have to look more closely before answering (2) so will come back to you.

That guide on law reports is good. A simple rule of thumb is to always use the neutral citation (normally in the top right of the first page of modern judgments) or the ICLR as the next most authoritative report. MKT92 (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

MKT92 I'm conscious that I'm asking a lot so just if it's of interest to you. ..appreciated! GregKaye 09:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Intention to create legal relations

I have proposed moving this page to intent to be bound. As far as I can determine, this is the most common name for the concept in all common law jurisdictions. I don't think this is likely to be controversial, but since the page has been there for a while (and has a three-year layer of dust on it, although that's pretty good for a law article these days), I thought I'd see if anybody can think of a reason it should stay at its current title, or be moved to some other title that I haven't thought of. -- Visviva (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

On further review I may have talked myself out of this move, but I would still welcome any input. -- Visviva (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Maya Forstater Input requested

Please would members join the discussion on Talk:Maya Forstater - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maya_Forstater#June_2022_article_changes. The discussion is about the wording to describe a UK employment case. Amongst other problems, an editor is insisting on saying that the case has been awarded to Forstater, when the decision of the second tribunal is still awaited. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

request

Could someone make a reasonable article or redirect about the "text and history" standard for judicial scrutiny, that seems to have been introduced in NYSRPA v. Bruen? I guess it is supposed to serve alongside and/or replace the existing strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, etc. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:FD2B (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Alcohol laws of New Jersey Featured article review

I have nominated Alcohol laws of New Jersey 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) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

International citation template

As part of some general citation cleanup I went to fix some of the EU law citation templates: {{CELEX}} and {{ECLI}}, and the latter still needs help finding individual sites to resolve addresses, Slovakia for one. I was thinking in the utter mess of Category:Law citation templates ( 85 ) (btw that category doesn't even cover half of them -- law templates need a category cleanup too) that there are potentially a lot of metadata fields that could be shared among a lot of countries' templates. Of course, plenty of the templates are just url masks and nothing more, but even taking something like {{Cite court}} as a reference base (as it's based on CS1) it may have less flexibility of formatting for getting started) would be worth trying to do. The hardest part is really just making sure all the individual regions' identifier code templates work.

There's a lot of styles for citing a mix of international law in a single publication, including that specified in Bluebook, but also Oxford (which is also different from what the university's criminal justice school uses, apparently) and a bunch of others for every university and journal (a MOS with bad typos!) out there. But as CS1 likes to point out, the citation style on Wikipedia is unique to Wikipedia, so there's no stone-set rulebook anybody is following anymore here. Regardless of style discussion, the main point is whether people think this is something that is possible to do in the first place, or at what scope it might be possible (e.g. everything in one template, or split treaties, decrees, legislation, and court cases up), and then style can be changed at any time.

A starting point could just be to see whether all the important bibliographic parameters in anything with an ECLI or CELEX be handled by a single template. Then what are the parameters and which are mutually inclusive/exclusive? And with a similar process in other jurisdictions, maybe some templates would be naturally suited to be wrappers on the same template. But as I have zero legal background (and almost no Wiki coding experience), just a passion for good citations and data, this is where I could use feedback. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are on the right track and have some idea of the complexity of the problem. One thing I would add is that, in my experience, the existing specialized citation templates all have very limiting ideas of what such citations are for, which makes them clunky to use much of the time. Perhaps a good way forward would be to figure out all the purposes we expect a legal citation on Wikipedia to be able to serve.

On that note, I've found that a pervasive problem, regardless of legal system or citation standard, is that I need to be able to cite a legal authority clearly as such (which is what standard professional citation formats like Bluebook are good at, and is also done for example by {{cite constitution}}), and to "say where I got it", preferably in such a way that a non-specialist can at least find and evaluate the authority I'm citing (which is what the CS1 templates are very good at) -- without confusing the two. It's awkward to use {{cite web}} to cite a constitutional provision as if I were merely citing a particular webpage, but it's also very unsatisfactory to use {{cite constitution}} to merely cite a constitution in the abstract while leaving the reader to figure out how to check my work. (What possibly-out-of-date online edition did I refer to? Which possibly-flawed translation did I rely on? On what date did I retrieve it? If I just cite "the Constitution of Benin, Article 57", the world may never know.) Medium-neutral identifiers like {{ECLI}} can be a big help where they are available, I think, but are probably not a full solution even then: I'd want to be able to provide at least an access-date and possibly some other {{cite web}} parameters. The approach I've been working on lately is to just smush the two types of citation together somehow, in the simpler case with something like "<contextually appropriate professional citation>: <cite web>" in a single ref, or in the more complex case with something like Veto#Constitutions cited (which I am not entirely happy with at present). But it would be much better if we could have some sort of standardized way of handling these problems, perhaps with some sort of CS1-based meta-template that could then be tailored for various forms of authority and legal systems, and smoothly integrated with {{sfn}}-style refs when appropriate. -- Visviva (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

CS1 is a module, so all Lua, but they're nice enough to support outside identifier templates. The identifiers alone in CS1 are complete with error checking and of course metadata, and it's a similar story with the rest of the parameters. Extending support in that template's code base for something like law would just seem weird in the short term -- there's often no author and no title, and a perhaps more granularity for numerical locators than is currently supported. A CS1|2 wrapper with creative aliases is the easy short-term solution if some errors and metadata can be suppressed (I'll ask CS1 Talk, but Vancouver CS disables metadata by default), and then proper Harvard-style/sfn citations can be supported individually with {{harvid}}.

Your point about WP citations being for a non-specialist audience is an important one. The typical format of U.S. legal citations, as reproduced in {{cite court}} and others, is completely opaque unless you know the convention of the field. To be fair we all have to learn how to read the basic bibliographic citation at various points in school, but there's also a basic literacy assumption on en.WP, and CS1|2 also does a great job of extending the basic understanding most people have of bibliographic citations to multiple formats. It did come of on CS1 Talk recently, however, that we nevertheless present journal "volume-issue" as "21(3)" or the like, which is the standard for many academic fields, while other templates use "vol. 21 no. 3". As I would support moving to the latter in {{cite journal}} so would I support more explicit reference to parameters in WP's legal citations. But that again is a matter of style that can be decided at any time, whereas determining what parameters are feasible is of first importance. If a CS1|2 wrapper is the first preference for immediate compatibility with harv/sfn, then I'll see what I can find out as far as what's possible. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

State Department Inspector General article

Hi, on February 23, 2022, I proposed a few updates to improve the quality of the Steve Linick article here that I think may be of interest to members of this project, especially since the Request Edits Queue seems to be pretty stalled. I can’t implement the requests myself since I have a conflict of interest as a personal connection and am aware that would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks.Skijackson (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have reviewed your edits and incorporated all of them (including those at BLPN), with minor changes, into the article. My full reply and ping is at Talk:Steve Linick. Thank you for your excellent suggestions, and we hope you consider continuing to contribute edits to Wikipedia in the future. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Right to an effective remedy (new article)

Hello! I just published my first article, Right to an effective remedy! Please help me make it better if you'd like to. Specifically, I think the definition in the lead could be clarified and I don't know if there are any templates that would be good for this article. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Full case name" in Template:Infobox court case (for Depp v. Heard and generally)?

"Full case name"? How full? Is "Full case name" the best description for the type of input desired? What type of input is desired?

I ask all this in the context of Depp v. Heard.

Via https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/high-profile-cases different levels of title can be found:

1. "DEPP V. HEARD TRIAL INFORMATION" on the webpage;
2. "JOHN C. DEPP, II V. AMBER LAURA HEARD" on "..the list of documents.." drop down menu on the webpage;
3. "JOHN C. DEPP, II VS. AMBER LAURA HEARD" as seemingly on, pre counterclaims, court documents such as this January 13, 2019 CIVIL CASE SUMMARY SHEET;
4. "JOHN C. DEPP II, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. AMBER LAURA HEARD, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff" by both parties variously on submitted documents like witness lists[17][18]
5. "JOHN C. DEPP II, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. AMBER LAURA HEARD, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff" on all court originating post counterclaim documents from this January 14, 2021 ORDER to this final June 24, 2022 Judgement Order.

What is the correct "full case name" for Depp v. Heard?

Is "full case name" the best description for the type of information required within Template:Infobox court case?

GregKaye 12:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Lloyd's Open Form

I wanted to request that somebody here take a look at Lloyd's Open Form, an article about admiralty law in the UK. Specifically, there's a link to The Undaunted being autogenerated by a {{Cite court}} template in footnote #3, which is not leading to whatever topic of that name was involved in an 1860 UK court case, but to a 1980s Canadian documentary television series. But since I know very little about the topic, I don't know what the other 19th-century British "The Undaunted" is for the purposes of being able to replace it with a disambiguated link so that it's not leading to the wrong topic -- so could somebody with more knowledge on the subject look into this and change the link target? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Criminal sentencing in the United States needs a lot of work

See my comments on the article's talk page. (Also posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States.) Joriki (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Depp v. Heard and Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Hello project law. Some experienced extra editors would be helpful in keeping those two trial pages in line with the standards of the project.

They are currently assessed as C-Class and Start-Class and both as "Low Importance". Given the vast media coverage maybe the importance of the second case Depp v. Heard should be raised to be in line with the O. J. Simpson murder case which is "Medium".

Depp v. Heard has attracted almost a record of almost 200.000 views in a single day and has appeared in the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report 3 times: April 24 to 30, 2022 - May 29 to June 4, 2022 - June 5 to 11, 2022

Since the matter is not over I think raising the quality of the articles would be important for future readers. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

ADA and WPN

do Assistant District Attorneys meet notability criteria by default, the way elected members of the legislature do?

(If not, I'll need to locate more sources.) DS (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

oh, and I'm also finding descriptions of this individual as "Assistant US Attorney", if that makes a difference? DS (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Nah, they'd need to meet the GNG—legislators (and judges) have a special carve-out at WP:NPOL, but that wouldn't apply to assistant district attorneys/Assistant United States Attorneys. (Asst. U.S. Attorneys, aka federal prosecutors, work for the federal government, while asst. district attorneys work for the state/local government.) I can't think of many people who would be notable based solely on their role as an asst. U.S. attorney since it's a pretty unremarkable civil-service position (most of the entries at Category:Assistant United States Attorneys are notable mainly for something else, such as being a judge/judicial nominee/full United States Attorney), but I suppose it's possible that people who worked on particularly prominent cases might attract GNG-qualifying press coverage. Hopefully this is helpful; feel free to let us know who exactly you're talking about and I'd be glad to take a look. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Barent Ten Eyck (1902/3 in Newark - 1969 in Salisbury, CT), whose career included "chief assistant to Thomas Dewey" (in which role he prosecuted Lucky Luciano), head of the Fraud Bureau, assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, General Counsel for the ACLU, and mayoral campaign manager for Newbold Morris. DS (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I found obituaries in The New York Times plus other outlets, and there's a fair amount coverage from his career (e.g. this NYT article; this; this), so I'd say he probably passes the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting paper on the impact of Wikipedia's law articles

There's a new paper out which might be of interest to this WikiProject. Lawyers wrote articles on Irish Supreme Court cases (a topic which we have very poor coverage of) and analyzed how these affected later decisions by Irish courts. They found that the existence of a Wikipedia article increased case citations by about 25%. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Wugapodes, perfect reading now that I'm heading to bed :) Hope you've had a good summer so far — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant to post this here but I am on holiday and it got away. I am one of the authors of the study. We want to thank this wikiproject because you gave us valuable feedback when I reached out a couple years ago. Our study looks at Ireland because there were virtually no articles for its supreme Court--made measuring the effect easier. However, we suspect that u.s. and u.k. judges are also using wikipedia. If you have any questions let me know (although two of my colleagues authors did the quantitative work). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You can see some reactions to the paper in the August issue of The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've got some critiques if you like :D.

(Obvious praise for the meticulous and objective nature of the study).

The justification for the fact that judges and clerks were following wikipedia was that common language was used. I'm not sure about this conclusion without more detail.

It could be that the wikipedia articles *and* the new judgment are following the wording in the original judgment which explains the correlation, without wikipedia influencing the wording.

I'm not sure that shared wording actually indicates that the reasoning has not been checked. From my own experience citing articles, I may apply quite heavy scrutiny to a line of reasoning, but then, if I agree with it in the writing up process paraphrase those sources which I agree with.

I don't know if a common vocabulary of words indicates a common argument structure - though am not sure what metrics would be better here. It could just be that the words are the same but the argument is quite differenct.

I'm not sure that the cited cases are actually driving the decision making of the case. There is a mode of thinking where you reach a conclusion then find cases that justify your existing argument or decision, or just do a review of similar cases so as to make sure that you haven't make a mistake. Of course, any people who then reference your case may make use of this discussion, but it isn't necessarily driving decision making.

The suggestion in the conclusion of "supervising editors" makes me a bit nervous about "professional overreach". It seems wrong for the solution to supreme courts judges potentially not objectively assessing cases themselve should be give the legal profession control over any writing on cases. It would seem simpler for the supreme court to just do their own analysis. Professions have their own types of biases and manipulations (which tend to be do with conformity and deference) and it seems rather wrong to remove one of the biggest antidotes to this which is wikipedia. I'd be less negative towards the idea of producing "blessed" versions of the wikipedia articles that have been reviewed by an editor. I'm also sort of aware that if there were good quality scholarly work that contextualizes a case, then the wikipedia article should ideally already be citing this. Talpedia (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion at Doctors' trial article

There is a discussion at Talk:Doctors'_trial#Requested_move_28_October_2022 which may be of interest to members of this project. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Article of interest

Bushel's Case might be interesting to take to GA if there are editors out there willing to do so. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Society for the Right to Die and Concern for Dying

Hello all,

I recently created articles on the US organisations Society for the Right to Die and Concern for Dying, which may of interest to members of this WikiProject.

Any additional eyes on these articles would be greatly appreciated, as I am not an expert in the topic matters at hand - these groups just seemed notable to me. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:History of the Constitution of Chile#Requested move 5 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History of the Constitution of Chile#Requested move 5 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Swiss Federal Constitution#Requested move 3 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Swiss Federal Constitution#Requested move 3 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Counties of Leix and Offaly Act 1556#Requested move 8 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Counties of Leix and Offaly Act 1556#Requested move 8 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Russian constitution (disambiguation)#Requested move 8 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Russian constitution (disambiguation)#Requested move 8 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Giffords Center update help

Hi WikiProject Law. I made some suggestions to update/correct the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and was wondering if a reviewer(s) from this project was able to take a look since the article is about a legal research center. I have a conflict of interest, so I can't edit the article directly myself. The requests that need review are here Talk:Giffords_Law_Center_to_Prevent_Gun_Violence#Updates_to_Improve_Article_-_June_14,_2022. Thanks.Brooklyn1576 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrative law#In common law countries needs more non-US content

This section and its examples have been flagged since 2015 as "deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject" - someone might like to have a look at it? (It has had a recent peak in pageviews as it was the target of the latest "Redactle" puzzle!) I considered just copying (with acknowledgement) the leads of the four articles which are linked with {{Main}} but thought someone else could probably do a better job. PamD 07:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth postnominals

In light of the death of her Elizabeth II, all commonwealth postnominals QC are forthwith KC. I will commence changing in Australia, anyone else please feel free to assist. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not change the postnominals for those that are dead - the change is not retrospective. I don't believe it applies to retired barristers. Find bruce (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Help with updating Latham & Watkins article

There is a RfC pending, Talk:Latham & Watkins#RfC: History section regarding Russian clients, concerning a paragraph regarding Russian clients in the article about RfC: History section regarding Russia Latham & Watkins. Members of this WikiProject might find it to be of interest. Thanks. DigitalMedia11 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holmby Productions, Inc. v. Vaughn

Hello, WikiProject,

I think this AFD discussion would benefit from editors with a legal background who could weigh in on whether or not this case was consequential. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Profit-sharing pension plan#Requested move 17 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Profit-sharing pension plan#Requested move 17 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Islamic sexual jurisprudence, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 3 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Requested move discussion at Talk:NAACP Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers#Requested move 30 September 2022

There is an requested move pending at Talk:NAACP Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers#Requested move 30 September 2022. Any members of this WikiProject can express their opinion to move or not to move the page. --2600:1700:9BF3:220:843E:7CB4:B014:18E9 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR for CSI effect

User:Buidhe has nominated CSI effect for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Edelson Updates

I made a proposal for some updates to the Edelson article a few months ago, which might be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Unfortunately, the Request Edits Queue seems to be stuck right now, and since I have a conflict of interest I won’t make any changes to the page myself. Is anyone in this Project interested in taking a look at these proposals, by any chance? Thanks very much. Mtd6596 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Input requested regarding merger of medical law into health law

I have created a proposal that medical law be merged into health law. Since the article topic falls within the subject matter area of WPLAW I invite anyone interested to contribute to the discussion. InsaneHacker (💬) 20:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing Law Pages

Curious on how often you edit pages? What makes you want to edit them? What makes you not want to edit them? What are the biggest hurdles in getting more people to edit wiki law articles or creating wiki law articles?

We are doing some research on what it would take to get more lawyers/ legal minded people on wiki to edit/create pages...any info would be great Snh3394 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll jump in here. I'm the law professor heading up the project. A small group of law students and I are exploring strategies for getting more lawyers to edit Wikipedia. We're in the early stages (mostly just learning how to edit Wikipedia ourselves), so we're very open to ideas. Some ideas we're throwing around: (1) get law firms to announce that editing Wikipedia will count as pro bono hours, (2) provide continuing legal education credit for learning how to edit law articles, (3) creating an appealing "how to" guide for editing law articles.

Any help would be very much appreciated! Lawprawf (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lawprawf One issue with law firms announcing that editing Wikipedia would count as pro bono hours is that would then lead the lawyers doing the editing to run afoul of Wikipedia's Paid editing guidelines. In fact, editing for CLE credit could also be interpreted as paid editing, as at that point you would be receiving compensation for your edits in the form of CLE credit. At that point they would be required to make certain mandatory disclosures they may not feel comfortable with. We already have some problems with Promotional editing in the legal topic area (as with any business).

I would love to see more lawyers and people with a background in legal research improving our law related articles, but the first hurdle is getting people to understand that it is not a place to advertise their practice, and they are not to cite their own writings or website as a source. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the general reasons to edit Wikipedia apply with more or less equal force to lawyers: Sharing knowledge, making the world a better place, correcting inaccuracies. I don't edit as much as I would like, primarily because there are other things going on in my life, particularly practicing law.

I'm sure that more lawyers would edit if their firms counted editing as creditable hours. I don't know how many firms might be inclined to do this. Usually pro bono publico activities are along the lines of providing legal services to underserved communities in some fashion. As for giving credit as a writing activity, that seems unlikely, since it is hard to see how editing Wikipedia will help a firm's marketing. My own experience is that, even though I edit under my real name and have done so for years, there has never been the slightest suggestion that this might lead to new business in any way.

A "how to" guide for editing law articles would be very helpful to both Wikipedia and its editors, so if there is interest in doing that, I would certainly like to see it. John M Baker (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Sorry for such a delayed response, but I'd love to throw a couple of questions your way.

(1) Do you (or anyone else you know) include information about Wikipedia edits on your resume? I'm thinking about adjunct teaching. Quite a few lawyers sign up to teach a law school class, and they certainly aren't doing it for the pay! Some of the motivation is almost certainly altruistic, and I imagine it's also just kind of fun for some people. But I think one motivation is the line on the resume. I wonder if Wikipedia edits are/could be similar.

(2) We are trying to put together a CLE course to teach lawyers how to edit Wikipedia, but we'd like to push further on the CLE front. In some states, I know that publishing in professional journals can count for CLE credit. Have you ever heard of someone getting CLE credit for creating/editing a Wikipedia article?

Thanks! And I'll make sure to keep you posted on the progress we make in creating a "How To" guide. Lawprawf (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Separate or combined "Judge X" and "Justice X" disambiguation pages?

Seeking input regarding whether it is preferred to have separate disambiguation pages for cases such as Justice Smith and Judge Smith, or combine them if the combined page is not too long? It seems like both approaches are currently in use. My feeling is that these should generally be combined in cases with fewer than ~10 entries. Perhaps there is some previous discussion or consensus on this? It would be helpful if this could be documented somewhere, perhaps on the WP:LAW page. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

A justice is technically one kind of judge, but a person coming before a federal court (or any court making that distinction) would never make the mistake of referring to the judge as "justice" or a justice as "judge". I wuold keep them separate as much as possible. They are two different titles. BD2412 T 02:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense to me that longer pages should be separated and very short pages can be combined. Especially in the common situation where people have held both titles Judge and Justice at different times in their careers, and readers would encounter both Judge X and Justice X in written material, even if a person is more well-known with one title. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

To follow up, I agree with Adumbravitus's point that since many justices used to be judges, the latter title will exist in written sources and therefore be a plausible search term. Moreover, when a judge becomes a justice, two disambiguation pages would need to updated if kept separate rather than just one if they were combined. Adding to that is the likelihood that many users don't understand the distinction between the two titles generally, or at least may not know whether the specific person they seek is a judge or a justice, and could therefore plausibly search for either. Finally, some of the justice dab pages already list judges in cases where a high court's members are referred to as judges (e.g. New York Court of Appeals), apparently because some might mistakenly believe they have the justice title. That said, I noticed there are many surnames that have a justice page, but not an analogous page for "judge" (nor does the judge form redirect to the justice page) even though there are multiple judges on enwiki with that name. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

We should avoid compound disambiguation. There are many more instances of individuals who serve as either a judge or a justice but not both. By comparison, many presidents previously served as senators, but we would not think to combine "Senator Foo" and "President Foo" disambiguation pages. BD2412 T 21:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Auschwitz trial#Requested move 3 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Auschwitz trial#Requested move 3 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Abortion in Texas has an RFC

Abortion in Texas has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

US bars and bar associations

Hi,

I'm looking for more info for Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#New_York_Bar.

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation page King's Bench

Could you help to [[WP:Disambiguation|disambiguate the links to King's Bench. Some of the articles listed on this list have been resolved, but there are many more where I am not sure which of the specific articles should be linked. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 21:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Laptop RFC

We need more input at this RFC. -- GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett

User:Buidhe has nominated Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Designated public place order

Haven't designated public place order now been replaced by Public Spaces Protection Orders? If so, can the article please be updated to reflect the current situation? — The Anome (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand law WikiProject

Kia ora, I'm currently just pondering whether creating a New Zealand law WikiProject is a good idea as we have a lot of key underdeveloped articles (Example: Electoral Act 1993 and Senior Courts Act 2016) and other at least semi-important missing content that would be benefitted greatly by a project dedicated to filling that gap, so I'm just seeing if there is anyone interested in participating in an NZ law project if created. Would love constructive feedback on whether this could be a good idea to explore, etc. Thanks! Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 04:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few people seem interested in this over at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#New Zealand law WikiProject if anyone is particularly interested in responding there. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 07:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

My only concern is whether there would be enough people to sustain it... given that this wikiproject page is pretty quiet. Talpedia (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree, it's made me a little hestitant, but excluding myself I've managed to get 3 other responses of interest in the space of a day on the NZ WikiProject. I don't particularly want to start it unless there is at least a few more people interested though. If it doesn't get more people, I'll likely see if we can get it into a task force over on that other project. But I do think that if enough people sign on, it should be alright. I'll likely be able to get at least a few more people interested in person next year as well. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 12:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carolina2k22 I'd recommend a WP:Task Force within the Law WikiProject - four editors is enough. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback needed on this article for immigration lawyer Draft:Allan Wernick

Hello WikiProject Law, I've been working on this draft article about Allan Wernick, an influential figure here in NYC immigration circles but with frustratingly little press. I am open to any thoughts, critiques, and/or recommendations. Thank you. - Wil540 art (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Jurisdictions of the United Kingdom

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Jurisdictions of the United Kingdom—has been proposed for merging with Law of the United Kingdom. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR notice

Brown v. Board of Education has been nominated for a community 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Inner German border

User:Buidhe has nominated Inner German border for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please help me cite this draft?

This draft is a translation of the French Wikipedia page on the same. But I think I shouldn't have started it since I have very little knowlegde of contract law (and law in general). But half of it is completed based on whatever I have understood till now, so can someone help continue it? Thank you. Excellenc1 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Excellenc1:, you don't need knowledge of contract law (although it helps), you just need to know how to look stuff up and source it properly. What's more tricky, is figuring out how to render terms of French civil law into English, as French civil law, unlike common law, uses the Napoleonic code. A good place to start, is to create a glossary, whether privately, just to help you translate it, or publicly, such as the ongoing Draft:Glossary of French criminal law (only about 20% complete) which I'm creating in order to help support various drafts and articles I'm working on, or plan to. That draft won't help you directly, as civil and criminal law are different, but it may give you some ideas about how to proceed. Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Legal vs. decriminalized

In articles on human rights, especially with respect to LGBT rights, the terms legal or decriminalized often show up. Sometimes, as in this edit at LGBT rights in France, an editor changes from one of the terms, to another. What are the distinctions between these two terms, and how should one choose between them? Is it ever valid to change from one of them to the other in an article? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The difference between "legal" and "decriminalized" seems to vary much depending on topics. In examples I find from cannabis discourse, something is legalized when the laws are removed from the books, but decriminalized when its simply chosen not to put criminal penalties behind those laws, at lest on limited quantities. In sex work, however, legalization is seen as setting up a legal structure under which it can be done, while still leaving it as a crime in other circumstances (such as Nevada legalizing in-brothel sex work while leaving similar activities illegal outside of them) while decriminalization is the removal of all such sex work-specific structure altogether. I suspect with LGBT discourse we're looking more at the former style than at the latter (I've not heard of a place making lesbian relations legal only for registered lesbians, say), but it may vary by situation. But they do have different meanings, and thus corrections from one to the other may at times be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I would concur, decriminalisation does typically have the same meaning as it would have so in cannabis discourse with queer rights. Though, of course as you've pointed out the meanings of these do differ across different topics. Carolina2k22 • (talk) • (edits) 09:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Nat and Carolina! Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot In some historical cases "decriminalization" of homosexuality did not make it legal, simply provided exceptions to prosecution under certain circumstances. For example, the Sexual Offences Act 1967. In other cases the offending paragraphs were removed entirely from the law. (t · c) buidhe 10:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding TV license laws in the UK the suggestion has been to use a Civil penalty instead of a criminal law, which is an odd new-fangled combination of a tort (against society as a whole) and a crime. I'm not entirely sure if they are constitutional but that doesn't stop a whole branch of traffic offences being regulated with them. Talpedia (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested for move request at Talk:Principle of opportunity

Your feedback would be appreciated at a discussion requesting a move from Principle of opportunity to Discretionary prosecution. Please see Talk:Principle of opportunity#Requested move 31 December 2022. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Still interested in your feedback , thanks! Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Announcing suite of Legifrance templates for citing French law

There are three templates available for editors who wish to cite laws or other legal texts at Légifrance, France's website for every law or legal text in existence, or that ever was, going back centuries. They are:

• {{Legifrance}}, a template to generate an external link to a French law (an enhanced port of the French template);
• {{Cite Legifrance}}, a wrapper for {{Cite web}} which references Légifrance and adds some additional parameters to be able to cite a specific law; and
• {{sfn Legifrance}}, a mashup of {{sfn}} and {{Cite Legifrance}} which allows you to easily write a short footnote that links to a specific law.

Please have a look at the doc pages, and try out the templates, and if there is anything that is unclear or could be improved, please note it below, or on the Talk page of the templates. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

King Henry VIII Clause

I was wondering if there is an article on wikipedia that describes the concept of "King Henry VIII clauses" in Commonwealth nations? Is there another term/article it is written under? It may be known by besides "legislate by proclamation"? I found the wikitionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_clause), wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56325276), and polish wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prawa_Henryka_VIII) articles. UK Parliament has a webpage on the topic. Any help would be great! - Caddyshack01 (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Caddyshack01, looks like it's mentioned at Statutory instrument (UK)#Henry VIII clauses, although there doesn't seem to be a stand-alone article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey this is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! - Caddyshack01 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. If comments are not entered on the article talk page, they may be swept up in archives here and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act
2. Ordinances of 1311
3. Regulamentul Organic

Slow burn disagreement about Partygate in Fixed penalty notice

Should Fixed penalty notice mention Partygate and the issue of FPNS to the then prime minister and chancellor and civil servants? Talpedia (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act Featured article review

I have nominated Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Bathroom Bill

For the article, Bathroom Bill, it should be renamed "United States Bathroom Bill" and make a separate article for the Bathroom Bill in Canada. It just an idea as the article don't explain a worldwide view.Cwater1 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

exonerated after death sentence

I've described the process of getting himself pronounced innocent of the incredibly grisly murders/dismemberments of his stepdaughter and her fiance and then getting a settlement from the state for Dale Johnston at Murders of Annette Cooper and Todd Schultz and am really just hoping I haven't screwed it up too badly. If anyone who understands what the heck I'm even writing about would want to take a look, I'd appreciate it. Valereee (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Citing a legal brief

I was trying to cite this legal brief as: (see the reference), based on what is shown here. Is there any good template I should use to use? Historyday01 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Historyday01 the Bluebook citation style is the proper one for legal items. (This was a sentence about a template but it turns out that template does not do what I thought it did). You might need to do a bit of googling. If you can't find a good guide, lemme know and I'll break out my paper copy of the Bluebook for ya. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 Alright, busted out my Bluebook, the proper citation here (from BB rule 10.8.3) is: Brief Amicus Curiae of the Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution in Support of Respondent at A-15, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (No. 02-102). Now, Bluebook doesn't account for source linking for cases, but given general Wikipedia practice I would link the entire title, as given. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks! Its funny, I took a law class in college, and did a law program in high school, but Bluebook was never discussed. However, I still have my trusty Black's Law Dictionary. I've been using this source to update some pages (like LGBT rights in Ohio and LGBT rights in Maryland), and already suggested people use it on LGBT in the United States work group, too, which I've been part of. Historyday01 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Merging Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law Articles

Hi all, I have started a merge discussion on the above-mentioned articles. If you are interested in helping out with the merger or opposing it, the discussion is at Jurisprudence. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Imputation (law)

Imputation (law) may need a rewrite. It is little changed from 2005 when its creator left off editing it, has no citations and possible OR. Discussion at Talk:Imputation (law). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. Wes sideman (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Preventive detention

There is a discussion at Talk:Preventive detention#Scope that might be of interest. Vpab15 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

History of the legal profession and History of the American legal profession in Law template.

The Template:Law currently has History of the legal profession and History of the American legal profession in the Disciplines section and I do believe it appears to be a bad fit. I would like to hear the opinions of the Law WPRJ on this matter before making any moves. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

My 2 cents- If there are like 20 different "history of X's legal profession" but maybe put "(by country)" and link to a category for the different histories. If there is literally only "Hisotry of Americal legal profession" and no others I'd leave it there as a useful page and to encourage people to write their own countries. Talpedia (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

These two articles are by the same author (or at least I believe so because of the tone they are written it), so I don't think there are many articles outside of those within the same scope. I was considering adding a section to the template, if possible, to add a History section to it and link to the two articles because I do believe that it indeed is useful to have the articles listed. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

How best to categorize Scientology case articles?

I need some redirection about how to best categorize the articles related to law and cases in Wikiproject Scientology. Scientology has been involved in a lot of lawsuits as well as criminal trials and there are at least a few dozen wiki articles related to these.

There are two categories: Category:Scientology and law and Category:Scientology litigation. My understanding is that 'litigation' means civil suits, but there are some criminal cases in there, too. 'Scientology and law' is too wishy-washy for a repository for actual case articles. My non-legal-trained brain is struggling to come up with any better-named categories. Maybe Category:Scientology legal cases which might hold both civil and criminal cases? Or keep 'litigation' but what to call the group of criminal case articles?

Some articles about people or organizations contain content which relates to a lawsuit or criminal case (example Arnie Lerma), but there's no separate article for the case. That's easy to solve, I suppose, by creating a redirect in the name of the case, categorizing that, and pointing it to the article with the content (like I did with Religious Technology Center v Lerma).

I would love some suggestions on how better to categorize these articles. I'll be doing the work to recategorize.

Last question, do you want the case articles to be tagged with WikiProject Law on their talk pages (if they're not already tagged that way)? Grorp (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The term “litigation” includes criminal litigation as well as civil litigation, so I do not think that there is a need to rename the category. It does seem to me that it would be helpful to include a WikiProject Law tag. I applaud your efforts on this. John M Baker (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, and the clarification about 'litigation', John M Baker. Grorp (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

How to deal with Fleecehold?

The Fleecehold article breaches WP:NPOV in several ways. The title itself is intentionally derogatory, and the entire text conflates the 'onerous terms' it criticises with the restrictive terms that are an essential part of any English leasehold contract. Thoughts on how best to deal with it are welcome. Perhaps redirect to new, neutrally-worded sections in Freehold (law) and Leasehold estate? Asking here as well as on talk page, which doesn't have many watchers. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

• @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Attention to updating of MOS guidelines

Bookku (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Input requested

There is a discussion that may be of interest at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Organizing potentially another Wikipedia blackout over RESTRICT Act[19]. Regards, --Thinker78 (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Regulamentul Organic

User:Buidhe has nominated Regulamentul Organic for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking for help!!

Hey Y'all,

I started a page and need help editing and adding to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawson_v._Commonwealth_(1942)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to RFC

You may wish to comment at Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RfC: Jeremy Gans, July 2022 opinion on the Briginshaw principle. starship.paint (exalt) 10:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sherman Minton Featured article review

I have nominated Sherman Minton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Karnoski v. Trump, Stone v. Trump (etc.) verb tense

These articles are written in the present tense: "Karnoski v. Trump (2:17-cv-01297-MJP) is a lawsuit [...] The suit, like the similar suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump, seeks to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service [... it] names as defendants the Secretary of Defense (originally James Mattis now Mark Esper)". Should they be switched to past tense? The case was unresolved at the time Biden revoked the ban. Stockman v. Trump uses a mix of tenses ("is an old lawsuit filed on September 5, 2017, [...which] seeks to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service [...]. The suit was filed"); Doe v. Trump (2017) uses past tense as I'd expect. -sche (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Both articles should be written in the past tense. In both cases, the parties filed stipulations of dismissal on August 19, 2021. The dismissal in Stone was immediately approved by the court. Karnoski was terminated per the parties’ stipulations on September 22, 2021. John M Baker (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've adjusted them to use past tense. Someone else may want to read through and see if I missed anything. Some of the articles seem to be missing information on the resolution of the cases (but that would need sources I don't have time to track down yet). I notice that the articles contain duplicated paragraphs about the history / lead-up, I wonder if that content could be centralized to somewhere and the duplication reduced. -sche (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Freely accessible sources at The Wikipedia Library

Hi all - I just wanted to drop by to remind you that if you meet the eligibility criteria, you can currently access free reliable sources on legal topics in The Wikipedia Library! We have collections from HeinOnline and Edward Elgar which may be of particular interest. If there are other law publishers that you'd like to be able to access, you can make suggestions here. Let me know if you have any questions! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at Talk:Donald Trump

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible separate article dedicated to the articles of the Russian Criminal Code which contain "corpus delicti with administrative prejudice"

Recently I have edited the article "Ildar Dadin"adding to it the section "Dadin's scheme". This section is fully dedicated to the scheme the essence of which is that some offence is punishable under the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, but second one, committed during the term of conviction, is punishable under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It is negatively perceived by lawyers because it allows to criminally persecute on the ground of judgements on administrative offences cases where facts are established under the significally simplified procedure in comparsion with procedure provided by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, but the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation recognised this scheme as constitutional. This scheme is actively used by the Putin's regime for persecution opposition activists and dissidents.

Should we create a separate article on this topic? What do you think? K8M8S8 (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the proposed separation would be premature. Even Russian wikipedia does not have Dadin scheme article now.

I would rather keep expanding the current version of the English counter-part.

There is a lot more in the Russian version, that can be translated and added to the English version. Walter Tau (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback and Review requried: UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol on Children Matters (2003)

Hi there - an article that I created UK-Pakistan Judicial Protocol on Children Matters (2003) is in need of a feedback and review. If anyone is interested in this topic area I would greatly appreciate some more eyes on this. 147.188.245.156 (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A law ignoramus asks...

I've just "accepted" Thwaytes v Sotheby's (converted it from a draft). An interesting article. I don't claim to have the conpetence to be mucking around with legal material. Realizing my legal ignorance, I've refrained from any legal(istic) categorization for the article. I might guess Category:Auction case law, Category:English mistake case law, Category:High Court of Justice cases, Category:Negligence case law, Category:2015 in case law, Category:2015 in British law; but over to you. There are also oddities, I think, in the referencing: I'm pretty sure that I know what each reference refers to, and if the article weren't law-related I'd do a lot of reformatting; however, I don't want to "fix" (?) anything one way while legal-MoS convention prescribes a different way. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello? No response, either here or there; so I added the categories myself. Somebody knowledgeable should check their appropriateness. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gruban v Booth

Gruban v Booth has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Maxwell Confait Move Discussion

There's a move discussion at Talk:Murder of Maxwell Confait, which belongs to this WikiProject. The question is whether the recently updated MOS:GENDERID policy suggests that Confait should principally be referred to as Michelle. Any thoughts (especially by persons able to do research!) would be greatly appreciated.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Political history of Zimbabwe

Political history of Zimbabwe has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Move request

There is a move request at Talk:Black Hills land claim that may be of interest to members of this project. Larataguera (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Category:Defensive gun use. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Isla Bryson case

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case#RfC on the inclusion of Isla Bryson's former name, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This RfC is on the application of MOS:GENDERID in relation to Bryson's former name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on draft

I am seeking feedback on a draft I created about trial attorney Bill Carmody, of Susman Godfrey, who has been profiled in the press several times because of the size and prominence of his cases. I have explained more here: User talk:Backyard116/sandbox/Bill Carmody/Seeking feedback. He’s a personal connection of mine, so impartial advice on notability and neutral point of view would be greatly appreciated. Backyard116 (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Template pointing to wrong place

I noticed a link off site in the middle of an article, went to switch it to a ref, and realized it's a template; UnitedStatesCode|18|2422(b) so it probably intentional. The problem is right now the link is dead, it's a 404 error, and I can't figure out how it should be corrected - section 18, 2422 seems completely unrelated. If anyone can pop over to the article Child grooming, go all the way to the United States section at the bottom and fix the template to the right place, it would be appreciated! Denaar (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Denaar  Done at Special:Diff/1166781267. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)