Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (law)

too centered on one nation

Please expand this essay to cover more nations. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If caselaw is a primary source...

@Nick Levinson: @OnBeyondZebrax: ...I think that means virtually all articles about specific cases are deeply problematic from a Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE perspective. Any thoughts on how to navigate that? Seems almost worth an essay in and of itself. (And to be clear, I think you're correct that generally speaking caselaw should be treated as a primary source.) This came up in the context of a GA review of Lafler v. Cooper, if that helps you grapple with it in the context of a real-world example. —Luis (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, because articles about primary sources are typically secondary. If the article reprints the primary source with little additional content, it may be primary, but, for instance, an article that's a newspaper article reporting a new Supreme Court decision and its highlights or is a law journal article analyzing implications of a case decision is no less secondary because it reprints the text of the court's original opinion, even of a dissent, as long as it has significant other content, too.

Apparently, no GA review has been started. I see that only user L235 or Kevin commented but I don't know how to find the comment, so I can't respond to it.

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Describing caselaw as exclusively a primary source does not reflect the nuanced nature of judicial decisions. Most caselaw deals with 3 matters (1) findings of fact (2) setting out the law & (3) applying the law to the facts. The typical judgment is only a primary source in relation to the 3rd. In relation to findings of fact, these are only made having considered primary sources and thus are clearly "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Similarly in relation to legislation, which is a primary source, however what that legislation means is then discussed in the decision. It is not unusual for the decision of an ultimate appeal court, consisting of 5 or more judges, to be difficult to interpret when there is no clear majority opinion. In this 3rd sense the decision is a primary source. To use a couple of well known examples, Donoghue v Stevenson is clearly a primary source in relation to the duty of care thereby established. The Privy Council decision in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills is a reliable secondary source in identifying the aspects of Donoghue v Stevenson that had majority agreement. While there are numerous other reliable secondary sources about Donoghue v Stevenson, that is not the case with more recent judgments. Judicial scruitiny of other decisions are, in my experience, much more insightful & reliable than the commonly cited news articles. This may be different in the US, where there appears to be more acadamic scrutiny.

To use caselaw as a secondary source, the proper citation appears to be along the lines that "in X v Y the court held that ..."(ref for X v Y)(ref for other case summarising X v Y). Many citations that I have seen in wikipedia do not use caselaw in this way, and instead mimic legal academic & judicial citation, giving only the reference for X v Y - I would agree that in this use, it is solely used as a primary source. Find bruce (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I like your analysis of caselaw, but, relative to what Wikipedia considers primary, I think Wikipedia editors would generally disagree and would classify an entire set of opinions in a case as primary and treat as secondary only a source about the case. And I'd be wary of citing a case interpreting a prior case when the new case may essentially be rewriting the holdings of the prior case without quite overturning it (overturning is frowned upon).

I think your 3-part analysis is similar to what would be said for the U.S., where, at least at the Federal level, a general requirement is for a district (trial) court to prepare for a case's possible appeal by providing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the conclusions generally reasoned unless unlikely to be controverted by any party, amicus, or appellate judge.

Thinking of a court as having a reputation for checking facts and for accuracy is something I'd want to think about. I guess so, depending on the parameters. While some matters can be judicially noticed, e.g., that 1 + 1 = 2, generally facts are as decided by a jury that is supposed not to reach outside for research and by a judge who is generally constrained to what the parties present. Likely many a case would be decided differently if judge and jury had visited the scene of the events the case is about (not always). Science is a problem for courts in the U.S., which tend to lag behind. Whether John Doe is guilty is fact-checked in a case, but which of several alternative theories supporting guilt were found to be true may be harder to identify and whether drug x causes blackouts (in the view of judge or jury) even harder or impossible despite definite relevance to the case.

Statutes are to be interpreted according to the plain meaning of their words, but the meaning may not be plain. I would prefer to rely on a treatise, journal, loose-leaf service, or some such for a better understanding of any statutory provision, especially as it may do a more comprehensive job than one court opinion will, such as if the circuits split and you have to read opinions from around the country to find differences in interpretation.

You mention the sometime lack of "a clear majority opinion". To be technical, in the U.S., the majority opinion is always the opinion of the court but the reasoning may not be easily applied to future cases when the opinion of the court says little on point but concurrences say much and in such a case there may be few holdings or only one, because the holdings can come only from the opinion of the court, and the one holding may be hardly informative, the burden then falling on future parties to persuade a later court on what the prior case meant.

A U.S. (nonultimate) appeals court for a case can consist of as few as 3 judges (more if en banc); the U.S. Supreme Court always sits with 9 justices unless any recused (justices often recuse in their first year).

I take it Australia is a common-law nation, as is the U.S. I gather most nations that do not have English heritage rely on something closer to the civil law tradition famous in France and I don't know how different that is in terms of the value of judicial precedent.

One problem is that Wikipedia is largely for a lay audience and court opinions are not. To extract a holding from a court case would prove confusing to many editors. There are reliable journalists covering the courts, mainly the U.S. Supreme Court and notorious trials. However, for other judicial lay reporting one may need to check lawyers' blogs and Wikipedia dislikes most blogs, leaving academic media and media for a specialty bar.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is written FOR a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that it can only reference material written BY lay people. In terms of journalists, in my experience in relation to the modern era, journalists are not generally legally qualified and their understanding of what has happened & why is often wildly inaccurate - they almost never stand up to scrutiny when challenged in defamation proceedings. In Australia when decisions are likely to be matters of media interest, many courts write judgment summaries that are in the nature of a press release that the journo can cut & paste. These judgment summaries are themselves useful secondary sources.

In terms of majority opinions, what they are agreeing upon is the result of the appeal, not the reasons - an Australian example is Cth v Verwayen - 2 judges would dismiss the appeal for reason A but not B, 2 would dismiss the appeal for reason B but not A & 3 would uphold the appeal. The result was the appeal was dismissed, even though no reason had a majority. While this example is Australian, it happens in all multi-member appeal benches in common law countries. You are correct to identify where different courts have different opinions. A reliable source doesn't mean perfect or immune from criticism - there is nothing wrong with citing a court case as a source for scientific proposition X, even if it is criticised by Dr X and Professor Y. Being an encyclopedia means that wikipedia doesn't need to decide which is right, but merely to point to the difference.

Nick Levinson's reference to a jury decision is a useful way to highlight what I am trying to say. If you want a reference for the fact that X killed Y, a news article is a pretty unreliable source. A jury decision meets the definition of reliable - perfection & always right is not an element. If you want a reference for how X killed Y, a jury decision won't help. The decision of judges in an appeal against the conviction however may shed more light, analysing the evidence and the submissions & at least narrowing the possibility of what the jury must have decided. The article Allan Baker and Kevin Crump is an example of where I am saying that the subsequent appellate decisions can be reliable secondary sources of the facts of the crimes for which they were convicted.

The same thing applies in relation to scientific journals - a paper setting out the results of their research is a primary source. A paper in the same journal examining that & other research is a secondary source. The whole journal doesn't get ruled out as a primary source, simply because part of it is.

I strongly agree with the nutshell comment "Some law sources may not be reliable. Others may be very complicated to use". Even on my position, there are limited circumstances in which a court decision is a secondary source & in relation to questions of law these are going to be at the complicated end of the scale. Find bruce (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be authored by laics; I agree. Some journalists fall short but not all do and we can select what to add to Wikipedia by judging the quality of our additions and their sources. Deleting sourced content is more problematic but that's usually when deletion is unexplained and without a sourced replacement.

I'm not clear when journalism on a court decision is subject to defamation proceedings (I know of only one instance and it's obscure and wasn't litigated or precedential), not just theoretically but in terms of cases already decided, but probably Australian and U.S. legal environments differ.

Summaries, syllabi, are published by the U.S. Supreme Court, are authored by the court's staff, and in themselves are not binding, so it's likely that they're not very tightly controlled by the primary authors of opinions, but the control is likely not loose, either. (You can look one up to see a general statement about the syllabi.) I don't know if any other court publishes similar summaries. Whether those syllabi make good secondary sources for Wikipedia is an interesting question. I don't know. I'd prefer something more independent, but whether the syllabi are adequately secondary for Wikipedia is something to think about.

On jury decisions, the only way almost any of us knows of any jury decision is through a secondary source. Appellate opinions restating facts do so for the facts relevant to a legal issue, since appellate courts do not decide cases de novo but focus on legal issues, and restate within the constraint that parties often have to narrow their presentations to what they disagree on. After a trial and the judgment, jurors sometimes talk on the record about the why, but not often, not all of them, and often on the invitation of one side's lawyer but not the other. On cases with higher notoriety, usually other sources are better at providing a fuller picture of the facts.

Majority opinions of court in the U.S. are different than what you describe for them in Australia (I'm unfamiliar with Australian practice but the decision you referenced appears to have all of the opinions put together as one decision; if so, that is not U.S. practice). In the U.S., if judges agree only on the conclusion, then you'll see one opinion of the court signed by a majority and one or more concurrences signed by one or more judges who also signed the majority opinion (e.g., the Pentagon Papers case in the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the per curiam opinion is about two pages long while Black's concurrence is about seven pages long, Douglas' about seven pages long, Stewart's about four, White's about ten, and Marshall's about eight (dissents not counted)). The majority opinion will state only what the majority agrees on. But a concurrence would not carry as much weight for future cases as the majority opinion would, so I think judges usually try to take the time to see if there's more they can agree on and include in the majority opinion. A political science textbook for undergraduates years ago said State high courts, unlike Federal courts, typically announce their decisions as unanimous, probably for the sake of clout, which I guess works if everyone dissents about as often as anyone else does and so they don't mind hiding that they dissented.

On citing legal opinions for scientific propositions, maybe Australian opinions are better informed than those from the U.S. I agree that Wikipedia can cite diverse opinions and let readers decide, but I'd rather that for science we cite divergent opinions from scientists. Wikipedia has a standard of due weight; a view that the evolution is wrong is reportable in Wikipedia (with a caveat) because it is so widely held but a view that the speed of light in a vacuum is half what is generally reported would be a fringe view not held (as far as I know) by any scientist and would not deserve due weight in Wikipedia, and I'd put a court's opinion on a scientific point somewhere in between. A judge may have taken a science class or two in college and maybe a class on science in the law in law school (judges assigned to patent cases may have more science background), but most of the more reliable science journalists took more than that (one New York Times science journalist had a peer-reviewed article of her own and there was a journalist writing for a peer-reviewed journal, Science). A witness may have been very learned, but what they said probably lost nuance (just answer yes or no, a judge or lawyer would say), they were questioned by lawyers whose science education is about as much as a judge's, they were addressing juries who are usually laics and not scientists, their testimony is almost never published, barely meeting Wikipedia's verifiability policy (it's verifiable because you can go to the courthouse and read a transcript if one was prepared and filed there), and I think peer-reviewed journals, while allowing authors to cite textbooks and conference papers collections (both of which get some kind of prepublication expert review), generally do not allow citing court testimony from scientists even when both parties had witnesses on the same issue.

Whether a meta-analysis is a secondary source when the studies it analyzes are primary is interesting. I don't know. But some refereed journals also carry journalism and are secondary for that; I agree.

(The Wikipedia URLs are as accessed Feb. 28, 2019.)

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether a court's summary of its own decisional opinion is secondary: An analogy: Suppose a President of the U.S. gives a major speech on an issue. Suppose the White House's press office issues a press release about that issue, based on the speech. If the speech is primary, is the press release secondary? If it is, it's only weakly so, and I'd rather a better secondary source. Ditto for court opinions. Reason: The provider of the primary source controls the secondary source in its editorial content. I may edit the essay to that effect. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The editing is done. Thanks for raising the point. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Obiter dictum is a secondary source

In a court opinion, only the part that is binding precedent is a primary source. “But there is a large and constantly increasing mass of so-called authority, avouched as evidence of the unwritten law, which we may designate as secondary authority. This class includes all extra-judicial efforts at legal exposition-such as text-books, encyclopedias, editorial annotations, obiter dicta of the courts, digests, etc.” So, for example, suppose the court opinion says “Company X, a forensic firm, prepared a report concluding that the decedent had been poisoned.” The court here is not announcing binding precedent that the decedent was poisoned or that Company X prepared a report, but is rather interpreting a primary source (the report prepared by Company X). In this it is a secondary source as to that report in the same way that the New York Times would be a secondary source if it printed the same sentence. The opinion of the court is not original material with respect to the fact that Company X prepared a report concluding that the decedent had been poisoned, and this fact is not any part of the binding precedent that the court is establishing. Swood100 (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Comments (or suggestions as to a more appropriate talk page)? Swood100 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Various pages of Wikipedia seem to be inconsistent as to how they treat primary authority and dicta. Primary_authority says that the term is used to refer to statements of law that are binding on courts, government and individuals. This would exclude dicta, which is not binding, yet footnote 1 seems to assert that all the text of a court opinion is primary authority. I don’t follow this. Legal_opinion says that “Opinions are in those jurisdictions usually published at the direction of the court, and to the extent, they contain pronouncements about what the law is and how it should be interpreted, they reinforce, change, establish, or overturn legal precedent.” This again is defined in terms of establishing legal precedent, which would exclude dicta.

According to the University of South Carolina School of Law, there are four sources of primary authority: constitutions, statutes, regulations, and case law. Case_law is defined as “a set of past rulings by tribunals that meet their respective jurisdictions' rules to be cited as precedent.” The same definition is given here, again excluding dicta.

Then there is the Virginia Law Review article I cited above, also stating that dicta is an example of secondary authority.

Except for some of the Wikipedia pages, the sources seem to be consistent in saying that if it does not have controlling or binding legal authority it is not a primary authority. Has this question ever been subject to a discussion on Wikipedia? Swood100 (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Narrowly, you're right that the court's statement about the forensic firm's report (taken here as hypothetical) would be secondary, but that would be a rare situation, because it would be characterizing an unpublished or otherwise-little-known document likely found mainly in a courthouse folder of evidence and might be judged by later readers of the court opinion as a statement of fact about the forensic firm's evidence in the case, and therefore neither a rationes decidendi nor an obiter dictum.

For an example closer to your point, here's a hypothetical appellate legal opinion: "Doe was convicted of committing murder in an airplane over North Carolina but claims he was over South Carolina at the time. The indictment did not allege being over North Carolina, the latitude having been inferred from timing given in a medical examiner's testimony as precise to within an hour. Doe could have claimed he was over Georgia at the time but that would have made no difference since the flight was from Massachusetts to Florida and the act anywhere on the flight is still murder." The rationes decidendi would be that, as a matter of law, being over South Carolina does not vitiate the conviction. Being over Georgia as not vitiating the conviction would be an obiter dictum because a Georgia contention was not made by the defendant, did not have to be made by the court in order to protect the defendant's appellate rights, and, most vitally, was not necessary to the legal conclusion upholding the conviction. But under the Wikipedia policy for editing Wikipedia, both ratio decidendi and obiter dicta in a court opinion would be primary but secondary in a journal article or newspaper story about the court opinion.

In distinguishing primary from secondary sources for the purposes of this essay, which is meant to clarify Wikipedia's policy on editing Wikipedia, I'd rather we rely on Wikipedia's policy distinguishing the two stated at the Wikipedia policy defining primary and secondary sources for Wikipedia. Wikipedia's article on primary authority serves a different purpose, although similar, and the differences from WP policy can be subtle but important. The quotation you provide from WP's article on legal opinions does not preclude dicta but does not address it; the quotation says "to the extent", so the quoter is not talking about opinions in their entirety but only about the portions that "contain pronouncements about what the law is and how it should be interpreted", thus not about dicta. If either article is erroneous or unclear, feel free to edit there or post to the talk page there (adding sourcing could be helpful), but the articles are not important for this essay. If the WP policy should be edited, do so or, more cautiously, propose at the talk page (major edits directly into policies are generally discouraged until WP consensus is achieved), but the policy is generally stable and likely to stay that way unless someone has a compelling argument for a policy change and editors largely agree, and to find that out proposing at the talk page by an editor is more advisable before editing the policy.

You raise some good points. I mainly think they go to other talk pages, but I'm glad you raised them. I should clarify the essay momentarily.

(Reminder: The flight story I made up here has not been checked as to the actual law on in-flight murder and latitude and should not be viewed as substantive law.)

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (Corrected: 19:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC))

A bit like my comments above, while it is easy in theory to separate out the ratio from obiter, in practice it can be much more difficult. I would think that describing a part of a judgement as obiter would itself require a reliable source. Find bruce (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Except that concurrences and dissents can be deleted without affecting the analytical foundations of the majority opinion, so they are examples of obiter dicta that is fairly easy to spot. See Obiter dictum for the assertion that dissents are obiter dicta. Swood100 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on primary authority serves a different purpose, although similar, and the differences from WP policy can be subtle but important.

This gets to the heart of the matter. Are you saying that something that is considered secondary authority in a legal proceeding should be considered primary authority if cited in Wikipedia? What is the reasoning behind this? The opinion that has legal effect is clearly a primary source for the legal effect that it has. But a dissent or concurrence has no legal effect, so how is it any different from a law review article? Swood100 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that all concurrences and dissents in U.S. case opinions are dicta.

Also, distinguishing between ratio and dicta in a majority opinion can be subjective and difficult and should be supported by a secondary source, treating the opinion as primary for that purpose.

I think treating any part of a majority opinion as itself secondary is likely to be problematic. A court opinion and Wikipedia serve different purposes, are written for different readers, and have different editorial standards. It is common for U.S. Supreme Court cases to be decided on the basis of arguments from opposing sides that are themselves very well reasoned. Very smart people usually have difficulty figuring out which side is going to win; analysis of oral argument and Justices' questions can be compared to reading tea leaves. Wikipedia editors have a wide range of skills, and we encourage editors with low skills to be bold and edit anyway, because other editors will fix errors later. That makes it safer to treat a court opinion as primary.

Here's a hypothetical situation: According to Smith v. Colgate (10th Cir., 2016), "[i]t is malpractice to remove a kidney without medical necessity or consent. Jones v. McIntyre (4th Cir. 2014). Therefore, it is malpractice to remove both kidneys without medical necessity or consent." It might appear that the conclusion is primary while the statement about the 4th Circuit case is secondary. But what if Jones actually said that it's malpractice to remove an organ generally necessary for functions of daily living and enjoyment of life, but didn't explicitly mention a kidney? Maybe, based on other precedents on how decisions may be construed, the Smith court was right in how it interpreted Jones, but the Smith ruling's statement on Jones could still be primary. And could it be that the conclusion being grounded on the predicate if the predicate is secondary makes the conclusion secondary? And an opinion from the 4th circuit is not binding on the 10th circuit, so is the statement by the 10th circuit about what the 4th circuit said really primary? Could most Wikipedia editors and readers tell the difference?

And a complication is judicial notice. If a party contends in court that the other party's theory of the case depends on Earth being round and that the other party did not attempt to prove any roundness of Earth at all, and therefore the other party's case is fatally flawed, the court can judicially notice the roundness of Earth and thus obviate any need to prove the point. Those moments probably don't occur often even in transcripts and especially not in published opinions, but occur they do.

I usually don't read a concurrence or dissent, but I wonder how often we could paraphrase one as secondary without drawing on the majority opinion for necessary context, thereby potentially drawing on primary content. A hypothetical dissent: "We disagree with Part III of the court's opinion, because of Thompson v. Washington." Putting that into Wikipedia requires explaining what's in Part III and what's in Thompson, and that probably means using primary content in Wikipedia, which Wikipedia allows but only with great care, which may be beyond the capabilities of most editors.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move of article to "Identifying reliable sources (US law)"

This essay has been tagged for a decade as reflecting only a US perspective, but nothing has been done to make it more global. I think that rather than keep the tag up for another decade with no action being taken, we should accept that this is an essay from the US perspective, and re-name it. I propose moving it to: "Identifying reliable sources (US law)". Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Much of what is in this essay are universally applicable principles of good sourcing, and many editors will still actively ignore essays like RSLAW anyway when it's brought up ("an RS is an RS"). We can subsection areas that are US-law= and US-court- specific and have the first sections of the essay focus on the broader idea of identifying reliable sources law, which are applicable in any jurisdiction. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• I just looked this over and was not impressed. The nutshell says "Some law sources may not be reliable. Others may be very complicated to use." As you could say this about any type of topic, these seem to be worthless platitudes. What follows at greater length does not seem much better. And it's interesting to note that the author of the essay did not have a high opinion of it themself as they left a footnote that "It is not recommended that this essay be promoted to become a guideline or a policy. This opposition to promotion is by the first editor of this essay."

The essay does not go into the US legal system in any great detail except in that it notes that Native Americans have a body of tribal law alongside the legal system imported from England. For example, it doesn't discuss the difference between common law and statute law. And it doesn't say much about the way that different states have different laws. As an occasional visitor to the US, I'm still uncertain how people are supposed to know all the different local laws. For example, I recall being puzzled by gas stations when driving around the East coast until I read somewhere that it's illegal to pump your own gas in New Jersey and so the gas stations work differently there.

(I just Googled to check whether that's still the case. The news sources such as CNN all seem to agree that NJ is the only state left with this law and so I suppose that they are right. Such sources seem quite adequate to support this fact but technology will continue to drive change. I looked further to find out how this applies to electric vehicles – are you allowed to plug them in yourself in NJ? The top source on Google for this is Quora which explains that the regulation is specifically for gasoline and so it's ok to pump your diesel. It then follows that electric charging is ok too. Quora would not normally be considered a reliable source but it makes enough sense that I'm not inclined to go further.)

So, as usual, the devil is in the details and there's so many of them that it's hard to summarise them in a useful way. And the essay doesn't even begin to cover other legal traditions such as Islamic law or Chinese law. I'm not convinced that it says anything useful at all and so it might be best to redirect it to WP:RS which lays out key general principles like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and is actual policy.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of this essay is to facilitate identifying reliable sources related to law. Not to explain what the law is or describe various jurisdictions. Just like the purpose of WP:SCIRS is about identifying reliable sources and does not devote sections to explain the differences between chemistry, civil engineering, and anthropology. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

And it's largely useless for the purpose. For example, consider the issue of gasoline pumping in NJ. To find a good detailed source for this, I use Google to pull up a list of hits. I then select the following which seems suitable: Retail Gasoline Dispensing Safety Act and Regulations. This goes into good detail by defining its terms and listing all the fussy regulations. But it says "This statute and rule reprint is for ready reference only. For official text consult the New Jersey Statutes Annotated and the New Jersey Administrative Code." So, if you want to be sure, you have to consult the actual statute, wherever that is. Any secondary source like this is always going to have this problem – that it is not the actual current law. So, this indicates that you should go to the primary legislation for best accuracy. The essay doesn't help with this as it mainly cops out by saying "Whether a law source is reliable or not needs to be assessed separately for each source." And it doesn't help in the process of actually finding the key documents online. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the kind of confusion that this page could clear up (and I think is intended to clear up).

The link you linked to [1] is not suitable, and is not a secondary source; it's a reprint of statutes, which are primary sources. The disclaimer about not being "official" is just to tell the reader that it's a reprint, not the official text of the statutes (meaning: if the official text changes, the reprint may not change along with it, resulting in the reprint being out of date).

For actual secondary sourcing about the New Jersey Gasoline Dispensing Safety Act, there are scholarly articles like [2] and [3]. There are articles by industry/lobbyists -- which I'm not sure if they should be used -- like [4] and [5]. And then there's ordinary news media -- not legal journalism, just popular journalism -- like [6], [7], and [8]. Generally, for content about the New Jersey Gasoline Dispensing Safety Act, RSes such as the first two should be used, rather than the others. Levivich (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)