Template talk:Law of the United States

Untitled

This template was formed from the ashes of changes to Template:Law. The original is preserved here. Feel free to add links as necessary. A particularly good source is the United States law category. Andeggs 07:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

>I added the United States Court of International Trade under the federal courts section.Robbie dee (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is WAY too much information for a navbox

Someone is pushing an agenda in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Navboxes are supposed to be for high-level overviews of major portions of a subject, not this kind of bizarre mishmash of very general and unusually specific topics. For example, the child-related topics are normally covered in law schools as part of family law courses. And in real world cases, they're litigated on family law court calendars. Those should be subsumed under a larger subject of family law. Four or five of the other topics have the exact same problem but I don't have the time right now to explain in detail why they're also similarly problematic. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

What's the POV-agenda being pushed in your opinion? Is it related to adding types of law to navboxes? Or does it have to do with the type of entry? In your revert you said it was "too much information" here. Are you opposed to adding any category here?L.tak (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Again. It should be fairly obvious above (go read about close reading) that the distinction I'm trying to make is between general topics and unusually specific topics. The editors insisting on the latter are in violation of WP:NPOV and in particular, WP:UNDUE. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In other words: you'd be in favour of keeping the "types of law" section, but balancing better the types specified? (I still have the feeling no particular POV is being pushed here, rather that the choice may not be the final version yet...) L.tak (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct. But the issue isn't so much "balance" per se as it's selecting articles at the same level of generality. When we have articles mixed in that are unusually specific (and are normally covered under broader legal categories), then it becomes obvious that someone is pushing a POV. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't, as templates are not for just a strict overview. Most of the articles linked in the section under discussion include the words "in the United States" or similar wording. A Wikipedia template is a map of the articles pertaining to the subject on Wikipedia. This map is fine, and could probably be expanded, not contracted. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we have categories for such hodgepodge groupings. And several of those articles in the navbox are not actually about law per se and are only tangentially related. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, I prefer to keep the changes. Indeed no formal hierarchy needs to be present, as Randy points out. Of course the number and type of entries can develop over time and this is not the final conclusion regarding the entries... L.tak (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's either now or never. Or we default to allowing User:DadaNeem to openly advocate in a navbox in clear violation of WP:NPOV.

That's disingenuous to contend that it is not the final conclusion. If you think otherwise, then please do everyone a favor and write a general article on American family law that would subsume the subtopic of child support as well as other subtopics like child custody, alimony, adoption, marital property, etc. The truth is that no one has written that article for over fifteen years, despite the large number of American lawyers who practice family law (I am not among them). No one has the time, energy, ability, or interest.

At the very least, the link to the article on gun politics needs to be changed to point to an article on gun law. Or instead, we can keep this navbox neutral and simple by focusing on broad noncontroversial categories of law like criminal and tort law. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed the link to 'gun law' to the correct article. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I note that User:DadaNeem never denied or refuted my allegation of pushing a specific POV in open violation of WP:NPOV. And User:L.tak and User:Randy Kryn clearly have no problem with allowing other editors run amok in violation of core Wikipedia policies. It is because of such misconduct that most lawyers do not take Wikipedia seriously. And that's why the few people with the ability to write a decent article on American family law don't bother.

So. My point has been made. Unfortunately, I'm way too busy right now, but I look forward to the day when I can find the time to seek appropriate remedies. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I read your comment before having another look at the template, half expecting to see the chaos caused by myself and others letting editors run amok. What I found was a compact template which seems a fine overview of the subject and likely in need of expansion. For example, on just a few seconds look I found United States nationality law, United States antitrust law, and United States obscenity law (although you are right in that there should eventually be full articles on United States family law). Why shouldn't these and other topics be added? Not being a lawyer, I don't see either the problem or my personal misconduct, nor do I see editors violating core Wikipedia policies. I've alerted the WikiProject Law talk page to this discussion, and in addition maybe you can open a RfC (Request for comment) and state your case to a wider community for specific changes in the template's subject matter. Initiating a wider discussion may both improve this and other legal templates and evolve fellow Wikipedians understanding of the legal professions point of view pertaining to topic presentation. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know about the neutrality concerns, but I agree with Coolcaesar that the categorization could stand to be improved to avoid highlighting some niche areas at the expense of other broader or more signifcant areas. Child custody law should be dropped in favor of Divorce law in the United States. Child sexual abuse should be dropped (already covered by criminal law and tort law). Energy law should be dropped in favor of United States environmental law (or perhaps both should be included side-by-side). Gun law, human rights, and race should be dropped in favor of Civil liberties in the United States. Juvenile should be dropped (already covered by criminal law). State law should be moved up into the "Constitutional law and legislation" row. Trusts can stay for now but it should eventually be dropped in favor of a new article called Probate law in the Unites States. Areas of law that should be added are United States corporate law, United States labor law, United States antitrust law, Bankruptcy law in the United States, and immigration law (not sure what to link to, could be List of United States immigration laws or Immigration to the United States#Legal issues). I also think that Uniform Commercial Code should be added to the "Constitutional law and legislation" row. R2 (bleep) 16:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)