Talk:Lawfare

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2013; 2014; 2015; 2016; 2018; 2019; 2021;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Wittes, Benjamin; Leutert, Stephanie (May 12, 2013). "On Wikipedia, Lawfare, Blogs, and Sources". Harvard National Security Journal.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

source 16 and 17 are the same

Footnotes #16 goes to the full report, #17 goes to the summary. Mcdruid (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump vs New York

The WSJ had an article recently where it made the case that New York AG lawsuits against trump like the one attempting to seize DJT properties constitutes "lawfare". Can we include this? I know DJT is like super controversial and bad but at the same time New York kind of really is doing lawfare against him. By posting a bond so high that even a billionaire can't afford it effectively denies him due process since he can't appeal without posting bond. Thoughts?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-price-of-anti-trump-lawfare-eroding-public-trust-politicized-prosecutions-7bba71d8

https://www.wsj.com/articles/letitia-james-donald-trump-464-million-bond-new-york-arthur-engoron-fbf1c6dd 47.232.91.253 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first is an opinion column by Daniel Henninger, who appears to be sheerly a commentator and I don't see relevant expertise. The second is an editorial. Neither is using this as an example in a larger discussion of lawfare.

(The amount of the bond is not something set to punish DJT; it's the standard method that one cannot appeal without posting a bond to cover the amount owed as a result of the ruling.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. Both are opinion. But I found the argument compelling. There is actually a better source I found earlier that I cannot find now which was a breakdown by some lawyer. Still searching for this one and will post once I find it. But Lawfare is most pertinent when against somebody universally reviled. One of tenets of justice in our system is protection for minority rights against majoritarian mobs. DJT is universally the modern day "hitler" in how he is reviled. Given that a victimless crime is being used to seize all his properties based on various legal instruments/proceedings in addition to a bond so high (or perhaps politically risky) that he cannot get an underwriter within 30 days of judgment, this effectively denies him justice because he effectively cannot appeal the decision. He asked for more time or a smaller bond and both requests were denied by the AG. I think it would provide an excellent example of domestic lawfare. Of course, I only really have a USA perspective on the matter. I don't know how rule of law works outside of USA (e.g. russia, etc).

We will have to wait and see if an appeals court will grant one of the two requests though. If they do, then this entire argument is moot because justice was allowed to progress. But unlikely given tomorrow is the deadline. 47.232.91.253 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so they extended his deadline and reduced his bond. So never mind. Justice, surprisingly, was allowed to proceed. Argument is moot. 47.232.91.253 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While many have connected him to Hitler, and for good reason, he is ahead in many polls, and tied in many others. Seems not quite universal. Gah4 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The broad legal woes of Donald Trump are increasingly described as "lawfare" by many observers, albeit, predictably, many of those so commenting appear to be disposed to view the former president in the most favorable light. It seems like it would be appropriate to have a section in this article noting the increasingly common use of this term to refer to Donald Trump's legal proceedings. Here's an article from the National Review by Don McLaughlin laying out the case for seeing the situation as lawfare GrinningBar69 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here's an article from the WSJ by Kimberly Strassel. This is an opinion piece, but just one of many examples of commentators describing Trump's situation as lawfare. GrinningBar69 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an opinion piece. And if there was some outside analysis commenting on its use, then that might be a good addition, but just adding examples is not. These are perhaps better sources for an article on Trump's legal problems. - Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you like it or not the vast majority of people view it as lawfare. 67.204.247.30 (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cite the reliable source with the statistical analysis that forms the evidentiary basis for your "the vast majority of people view it as lawfare" statement, maybe it can be added to the article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Definition

This appears to be an incorrect usage or definition of the term. As described in the Lawfare podcast, which has been using the term since 2010, it is the use and application of law in armed conflict. Sometimes used as a pejorative about concerns about law of war and related human rights issues. 73.71.67.5 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be premised on the notion that there is a correct definition and a correct usage. Even the source you cite, the Lawfare team don't take that position. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives (Index)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2018 2019 2021
This page is archived by ClueBot III.