Talk:Legal research

Style and formatting questions

Here are some references to why the style and formatting changes by myself, Dr. Gangrene, and BD2412 were done, and why the page should still have {{cleanup-tone}} on it. JesseW 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces after headings: optional.
- I prefer it without them, as it conserves screen space. JesseW 23:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
links like internet or process: don't link "plain English words".
Putting external links inline: "This is discouraged in most situations."
Piped links(like [[Book|books]]): "Endings are blended into the link. / Preferred style is to use this instead of a piped link, if possible."
Use short sentences and lists: e.g. making "1) blah 2) blah" into (wikicode)# blah newline # blah.
I can't find somewhere that says that using "you" is better than using "one", but I belive it nonetheless. JesseW 00:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
m:Quest for gender-neutral pronouns with regards to "he or she" vs rephrasing, i.e. "the current".

I look forward to your responses to this. I shall leave the article as it is for 3 days, to give you time to comment, then, edit it to conform with the guidelines stated above. Thanks for inducing me to read over the Wikipedia:Style guidelines and for your contributions to Wikipedia! JesseW 00:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although your points on style are valid, I think the problems with this article go much deeper. This is more of a "how-to" guide than an encyclopedia article. It really needs a substantive rewrite to provide more of a description of what legal research is, and why people do it, than tips on how to do it. --Russ Blau (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and various people do intend to do such a rewrite eventually. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

As one of the comments noted above, I wrote this as much as a "how to" guide as an encyclopedia article for the classes I teach. However, I agree that a definition of legal research would greatly improve the article. I added a definition of legal research to better set the stage for the article, but I deliberately wrote in a more informal tone to make a difficult subject more accessible to the layperson (which I thought was the purpose of the Wikipedia project). I used links in the text of the article so that those who wanted to use it for a resource guide could print it out and have the links in the context of the discussion more in the tradition of a library pathfinder. I hope the changes I made improves the article somewhat. Yjones.

I would also add that another major problem with this article is that it's about how to do legal research in the US when it should be about legal research in a global sense.--PullUpYourSocks 14:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Article

In section 2, Judicial Branch Sources, the article says "The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are "binding" on all of the courts in the United States." This is not accurate as written. Decisions of the United States Supreme Court are binding with respect to federal law, and are binding on Federal Courts with respect to federal law issues. But the courts of each of the states are able to reach their own conclusions regarding the interpretation of their own laws and their own constitutions. As long as the state courts do not attempt to restrict the powers of the Federal Government, and do not attempt to uphold state laws which infringe on rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, State Courts can disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court. Similarly, lower Federal Courts can sometimes enforce state laws (in appropriate cases) which go beyond what the U.S. Supreme court would do under federal law.

This has been clarified by quoting a discussion of the Supreme court from a legal research textbook.

Suggestion for linkage

[[1]] (Has UML been applied to law, yet?)

Process of finding legal documents

Section "What is legal research?" says

This article focuses on the process of finding legal documents issued by courts, legislatures and other government entities in the United States.

I would say that this process is not typical to the United States, but is probably conducted in most western-style nations. I would therefore suggest to remove "in the United States". --Invenio 09:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate deletions

Accurate information about Google Scholar should not be deleted from this article. If there is a valid reason for the deletion, please discuss it here. If not, the content should be restored and left alone. Please, let's avoid edit warring and three-revert rule issues. Ericengle (talk · contribs), please join this conversation if you disagree with the restoration of the content. Arllaw (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should not have been deleted. Why would it be permissible to include paid commercial services like Westlaw and Lexis, but impermissible to discuss Google Scholar? bd2412 T 20:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arllaw and BD2412 are correct. Famspear (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the revision history that I am the first person to have inserted information about google scholar for law, including a link to several specialized google CSE engines. Arlaw deleted that, inserted a bit abot google scholar, and then presented a UMD link as if it were a link to google scholar which had no cse engines or so far as I saw any direct link to google's existing case law search engines. Presenting a link to a university site as if it were a link to google seems misleading. It also seemed quite galling that having identified this research gap in wikipedia and nicely filling it my reward is a come-uppance. The information on the UMD site is frankly less accurate regarding how exactly to use google scholar to constrain searches using logical operators, search domains, urls. The UMD link also appears to ignore the unfortunate opacity of google regarding stemming and wild-cards. Seems unfair or unscientific, possibly both. The article now no longer refers to the capacity users have to create custom search engines. The link I provide also includes case law search engines for the ECJ, ECtHR, ICTR and ICTY which are not google or behind a paywall. This page is legal research not US research and so ought to include not merely references to lexis and westlaw but also iuris and celex, for examples.

I am ok with this page as it is currently however the page could of course be improved. But if even simple improvements lead to conflicts instead of cooperation, why bother? Ericengle (talk • contribs) 00:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sources and references to the page is a good thing - I'm not sure I see the case for removing Arlaw's additions. If you disagree with the removal of prior material, you can add it back without removing what is now in the article. bd2412 T 00:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that the page can be improved. It is important that changes to the article be accurate, and that they be supported by suitable reliable sources. For example, "Google offers an advertising supported privacy invasive searchable database of recent federal and state case law as part of google scholar" is not accurate. I also don't see anything on your page about creating custom search engines. In making improvements, you may benefit from reviewing Wikipedia's guidelines on neutral point of view, external links and conflicts of interest. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]