Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Can we say that Volkswagen has acted illegally?

Following some discussion by non-lawyers at Volkswagen emissions violations, a discontinuity of opinion has emerged over whether we can state in Wikipedia's voice that Volkswagen has acted illegally in its handling of emission control devices on its TDi diesel engines. Discussion has groan abusive and heated and I feel we may need some guidance. I have raised an RfC on the talk page, and I invite contributions from all. --Pete (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

At this moment in time has it been found guilty of any crime? GiantSnowman 10:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
There have been no court proceedings as yet, though undoubtedly some will commence in due course. The EPA has issued a notice of violation - that's all. --Pete (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not state Volkswagen acted illegally at this point. WP should describe the acts in the same manner the reliable sources describe them. Minor4th 19:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Malice murder

Given the recent publicity around Kelly Gissendaner's execution I have started a quick article on malice murder - any US/Georgian legal experts would be appreciated in helping expand and clarify exactly what it is, and how it is different from felony murder (my limey brain can't work it out). GiantSnowman 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Georgia has a bifurcated homicide statute where the state may bring charges for (i) malice murder (i.e. murder committed with malice (law)) and/or (ii) felony murder. This is codified at O.C.G.A. § 16-5-1 (2010). A quick search found this nice explanation from Smith v. State, 258 Ga. 181, 183 (2) (366 S.E.2d 763) (1988): "A single homicide can result from facts sufficient to support both malice and felony murder. Malice is not an element in a trial for felony murder but the presence of malice does not bar a felony murder conviction. Likewise, the existence of a felony is not an element in a trial for malice murder but its presence is no bar to a malice murder conviction. When the elements of malice and an underlying felony both exist in a murder case, the law does not preclude verdicts of guilty of both malice and felony murder. However, where there is a single victim, the defendant may be sentenced on either but not both. [Cits.]." Therefore, It might be helpful to make the focus of the article about Georgia's homicide statutes in general, rather than "malice murder" specifically (cf. [[Category:U.S. state criminal law]] for existing state felony murder articles). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, I would recommend removing malice murder from Template:Homicide, because I think most people will confuse the Georgia crime of "malice murder" with the more general concept of murder committed with malice (law). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Schmerber v. California Featured Article Candidate

Schmerber v. California is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Schmerber v. California/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft?

I've started a discussion over on the Talk page of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft about the article's weaknesses and proposed a new draft to update and expand the entry's content. I should note that I was paid to prepare this draft as part of my work at Beutler Ink, by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Because of this conflict of interest, I will not be editing the article myself. Instead, I am seeking input from other editors, who I hope will review my work and make changes as deemed appropriate. I'm open to any suggestions others may have about my draft and will keep an eye on this page and the Talk page for any responses. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto legal cases is an article that is in really sorry shape; it is organized poorly; coverage of various legal cases is inconsistent and probably undue, the lede leaves much to be desired, and it could use some eyes from those of us who know how to write about legal issues. This article has been the subject of much controversy, and I believe some of the controversy can be tamped down if we get some actual legal writers over there to get this article in shape and to evaluate the sources and so forth. Thanks. Minor4th 21:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Concur. The main problem with the article is the input of anti-Monsanto activists crusading roughshod over wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Do we know if this article is within the scope of the ongoing Arbcom case? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Genetically Modified Organisms? Mentioned in evidence, and many of those named in the case are active in the article. --Pete (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is within the scope of the Arb case, but it is not about GMO's. I don't know what the main problem is with the article ,but it is a huge mess and needs some attention. Minor4th 03:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Cite act}}

Can template:Cite act be expanded to add an archival URL, and legislative session, and legislature ? Currently it doesn't seem to have any way to define which legislature the act was passed in, or which session -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not in Front of the Children - at Peer Review

I've requested Peer Review for Not in Front of the Children.

Feedback would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Not in Front of the Children/archive1.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Status of Scientology

Hi, I'd like some help on this topic and Talk:Scientology#Scientology_as_a_tax-exempt_organization (poor sourcing, reliable sources not taken into account, inconsistencies between articles on the same topic). Apokrif (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review

I have recently made some edits to Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., and since I am not American, and not a lawyer, I would appreciate it if somebody who is both would review my recent edits. Debresser (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help and comments with Sex offender registries in the United States

Neutrality of Sex offender registries in the United States has been questioned. Some editors think it currently reads like advocacy and is promoting legislative reforms. Deleting the whole article has been discussed. Relevant discussion and link to NPOV notice can be found here. This far, only few editors have provided comments. The article cites 44 peer reviewed studies, one book compiling studies on these matters, a hand full of studies by government entities, two reports by the Human Right Watch, news and other relevant sources. Therefore, I think, if the article has serious NPOV issues it can be saved by rewriting as, on it's core, it is healthy due to strong list of quality RS. Currently article is rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. Comments and help in achieving neutrality is badly needed. Thank you. ViperFace (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Lebanon

Can someone clarify what the situation is regarding Women's suffrage in Lebanon? There is a discussion here: Talk:Women's_suffrage#Lebanon. 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C2F4 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Blank pad rule

Do we have an article on this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Now we do. Thanks everyone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Requesting edits on Marsy's Law

Hello, I have posted an edit request on the Talk page for Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 article. Specifically, I'm asking for two proposed edits that would include a short overview of a similar Marsy's Law in Illinois. I have a financial conflict of interest (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) so I am aware I should not edit the article. Can someone here take a look at my request and add this new detail to the article? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Would this person's death be considered a "homicide"? (Cross-wiki issues)

In regards to Death of Gabriel Granillo I would like to know if this death would be considered a homicide under the American definition/notion.

The girl who killed Granillo underwent a murder trial, but it ended in a hung jury. The dispute was over whether she intentionally killed him or not: she said she acted in self defense and was frightened, and the prosecution said she intentionally tried to kill Granillo to prove herself. She ultimately took a plea deal where she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. She served probation, and the criminal charge was dismissed after probation ended.

It relates to the naming of the Spanish Wikipedia article: es:Muerte de Gabriel Granillo. A user told me that the girl should not be described as a "matadora" (Wiktionary says that this means "killer": Wiktionary:matadora) and that it would be a "homicide" (homicida). However while the right Spanish language terms need to be chosen, they also need to correctly correlate with the English-language legal system in Texas.

Should the death be described as a "homicidio" even though she was convicted of aggravated assault and not homicide? What should Benton be described as in Spanish? I'm posting it here and inviting ES.Wiki users here due to the likelihood of this venue having more knowledge of U.S. law. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Matar implies intention. The death should be called el homicidio, which means death at the hand of another (there is the term homicidio involuntario). Although she could neutrally be called la homicida as long as it is made clear of what she was convicted, I would stick with la acusada and la condenada (the convicted one) except when translating someone else's use of killer. In other words, use la homicida following the rules of WP:ATTRIBUTE and when speaking in the voice of WP use only acusada and condenada. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
See, for example, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caso_O._J._Simpson where the term homicidio is used of the deaths, and Simpson's trial por asesinato. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the answer! It's really helpful. I stand corrected about the words. I think "homicida" is the best choice. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Logo examples - Threshold of Originality

Would the addition of the CCC logos here and discussion thereof improve the article discussed at Talk:Threshold_of_originality#More_images.3F? Could use an expert opinion.--Elvey(t•c) 20:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification that International law has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement

Hello,
Please note that International law, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's 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 00:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Directive 2014/41/EU and the European Investigation Order

It looks like the directive is about this order. Why is it not mentioned in the article? --Ysangkok (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident‎

With the news that prosecutions are to follow in the wake of the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident‎, presumably this article now falls under the scope of WP:LAW. Addition of suitable categories to the article would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary carer

There is an article called Primary carer. It carries no citation and on 23 November 2015 an IP editor altered the lead and some of the other text with this edit. I have no idea if it is accurate, but the change seems to be in sympathy with "Fathers' rights activists scale roof at Buckingham Palace" (30 November 2015). Can someone who actually knows the law and/or has access to legal references please clean up the article up and add a few citations because at the moment it carries none at all and so is wide open to unbalanced POVs. In this case the IP changes seem to be at odds with at least one British Government web page: Apply for a derivative residence card, but I do not know enough about the subject to be able to give an overview with citations that the article clearly needs. If indeed it is a legally outdated concept, as suggested by the IP, then the article may be better off as a redirect to a section in another article.

-- PBS (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

When does a case deserve an article

Hello all, I've been contributing articles for most of the last year on (mostly) NZ court decisions. However I got wondering today whether there is a guide as to whether a case is notable enough for wikipedia. If there is please let me know. Otherwise I'd love to hear peoples suggestions as to what that guide could be. Atthebonfire (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Atthebonfire: I'm not usually on this wikiproject, but I popped over to ask a similar project about Australian cases! For what it is worth coming from a non-legal-topic editor, I think you'd have a good mandate for cases that had broad societal impact, or impact within the profession. The general importance guide for WP:LAW seems to suggest that cases that set precedence would class at least as as low-importance. Looking at the NZ case law category, there seem to be quite a spread already which might offer a guideline for what level has previously been tolerated for articles. I'm of course happy to be contradicted by editors with more specific knowledge in this are though! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Royal justices

We have a fair few articles in which English people are described as having been royal justices. (I've linked quite a few of these: see here). However, we don't have an article on what a royal justice might have been. To say I am not a historian or a lawyer is putting it mildly. As far as I can see, they were royal officials who circulated around the country acting as representatives of the king, and dealing out the king's law among the people, like a Roman governor traveling the provinces -- or possibly Judge Dredd. They seem mostly to have been a phenomenon of the Angevin era, and various web sources suggest that the institution led to the development of the common law system. So that seems really interesting. Would someone be interested in creating an article about this? -- The Anome (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've now created a stub at Royal justice. Please let me know whether this is correct, or am I wildly wrong about this? -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Greville Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone

The article Greville Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone is still marked on its talk page as sub judice. Does Janner's death instantly bring all court action to a halt, or do the courts have to go through some procedure to cancel the legal action before the case can no longer be regarded as sub judice? Is it even possible that the trial of the facts or some other form of official investigation might survive his death, and if so, would sub judice apply to that? -- The Anome (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • There will be no trial of the facts. Unlike in some other countries - an example in Russia from a couple of years ago springs to mind - the criminal courts of England and Wales do not allow dead people to be prosecuted. The court case will be closed administratively, without the need for a further hearing. BencherliteTalk 08:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask for some help in a debate: User:WilliamJE wants to delete all case links (to bailii, Eur-lex, or ussc reports) in drop down case templates such as these on English contract law or EU law:

This is really important that it does not happen for the development of law articles - as I hope you can see if you're also a lawyer: quick access to the primary sources. If anyone could drop a comment against this being deleted at the bottom on my talk page, this would be really appreciated. Wikidea 19:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Although I have not read the discussion on your talk page, I don't see how case links would be unhelpful or against policy. However, you should be careful how you phrase notifications like the one you posted above. Per WP:APPNOTE, when you inform editors of ongoing discussions, the notifications should be "neutral" and "non-partisan." I appreciate your efforts to broaden participation in the discussion, but I don't want to see you get in trouble for posting notifications like these. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, for this response - and advice on wording, certainly not my intention. Wikidea 13:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Notecardforfree: You suggest that case links would be acceptable; I'd like to explore this. I know I had to read the opening sentence more than once to fully digest it. For example in the template on the right "sources on unfair terms" the first entry has a wiki link to Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as well as an external link. The wiki link to the relevant article seems quite appropriate, but I don't think we encourage external links in such templates. Normally, external links are included in a specific section identifying them as such i.e. an external links section, or as part of a proper reference in a references section. I don't recall seeing external links included in either navigation templates or sidebar templates. The relevant guideline Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates Specifically states Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates. Is there some other policy that trumps this? (When I first read this I thought "case links" included things like links to other Wikipedia articles which are acceptable, but when I read closer I realized that it was specifically talking about external links)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Here is a rather large (Over 100 links in it when fully opened) law case template without one single EL in it. {{US1stAmendment|press|state=expanded}} Just one, and I can supply many more, of Legal templates without EL in them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
William, as I trust you are familiar with the basic tenets of logic, existence of a template without an EL is not proof that ELs are prohibited. I agree that based on my understanding of policy a template should not include an EL; but I'd like to hear from others in case there are some exceptions I haven't yet learned about. This place has a lot of rules and I don't pretend to know all of them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, WilliamJE, and Wikidea: when I wrote my previous comment, I was not aware of the guideline that states "external links should not be included in navigation templates". I certainly appreciate the rationale underlying the guideline, but one of the goals of Wikipedia is to connect people with useful information, and I think the presence of external links in navigation boxes will only help people learn more or help people connect with the information they need. In fact, the infoboxes for SCOTUS articles are designed to include external links to the full text of opinions and oral arguments (see, e.g., the infobox for Roe v. Wade). Infoboxes for other disciplines also often include external links as well (see, e.g., the infoboxes at JAMA (journal), Barack Obama, Pneumonia, and Wikipedia). For legal articles, I think that external links to the full text of cases would be particularly useful for practitioners who want to know more about the case (or if they want to verify the accuracy of information presented in a Wikipedia article). In any event, I think the benefit far outweighs any harm. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
In addition, it's worth stressing the "guideline" is just that - a good general rule, but not an absolute rule. In fact, we have a "template", as I pointed out before a couple of times that's specifically for external links. Please see, for example, here: Template talk:Ussc. We were trying to get this not just for US cases, but for all of bailii and ideally worldlii. It's really an excellent thing to be able to link articles quickly and efficiently to the neutral case reports, especially in templates. Wikidea 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree that a guideline is short of an absolute rule. One of the reasons things we make guidelines is that this is a big place with lots of complicated situations, and it is virtually impossible to anticipate all possible cases. Thus, best practices are written as guidelines, with the expectation that, in some rare cases, exceptions may occur. However, an exception should be accompanied by a darn good reason. While "help people learn more" sounds like a good reason on the surface, in my opinion it isn't strong enough. I contend that, with the exception of intentional vandalism, virtually every edit made to this encyclopedia meets that goal. Yet, we revert thousands of edits every day. I think we need something a lot stronger to justify not following the guideline.

Let me explain further, so I do not come across as simply a slave to rules. Everyone who spends a bit of time reading Wikipedia comes to learn a number of things about the format. One of the things they learn is that Wikipedia articles of full of links. These links bring you to additional information about the subject. They will also learn that clicking on the link will bring you to somewhere else in Wikipedia with two exceptions. First, on occasion there will be a link that goes to an external site. These won't be scattered throughout the article, but collected in a specific section with a clearly identified section heading called "external links". We follow a paradigm that readers are not brought outside of Wikipedia unless it is obvious that they will be brought outside of Wikipedia. The external links section is one such example. The other main example is the reference section. While we allow just about anyone to edit Wikipedia, we try to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible by insisting on references for important information. Because we want these references to be reliable, and almost by definition Wikipedia itself is not reliable, references should be to external sources.

I don't know that what I just wrote above is explicitly written out somewhere but I believe virtually all readers of Wikipedia come to understand this paradigm. References contain links to external reliable sources. Other links, except for those specifically designated as external links will bring you elsewhere to Wikipedia.

I'm sure we can all find examples of articles that violate these rules but in most cases it is simply because editors haven't gotten around to fixing them. With the exception of a few legal articles which have recently been brought to my attention I don't recall any widespread examples of templates that contain external links or articles that have external links in the main text. For this reason, the possibility that we would decide that certain articles are exempt from this rule is actually a big deal. If accepted, it means that readers of Wikipedia have to understand that we have a paradigm that applies in about 5 million articles, but a handful follow a different paradigm, and there may be links that go to external sources in templates not clearly identified as external links, and there may be references which do not actually go to a reliable source but go to another Wikipedia article. I think we would need an RFC to get approval for this exception and I cannot imagine that it would gain consensus.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't already, but please do check this out, the template especially for law pages, and especially for external links: Template:Ussc - been there for ages, like the drop down boxes. Wikidea 10:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidea asked for my input. In short, my thoughts are these. (1) Should we have external links in templates to transcripts of judgments? No. If someone wants to read the judgment for X v Y, then they can go to the article about X v Y. That's the only place they "need" the external link. We don't need links to the judgment for X v Y on the article for X v Y every other single article upon which someone has slapped the template. That looks like linkspam to me. Let's say we have a template with 30 articles in it. 30 articles, 30 cases, used 30 times, each time with 30 external links. 900 total external links! Complete overkill. (2) Should we have red links in references? Well, why not link instead to a secondary source to establish the point that is being made, rather than interpret the primary source of a legal decision? After all, in many instances there will be considerable debate as to whether / to what extent X v Y establishes proposition Z. And if there is no debate, then a citation to a reliable secondary source won't be difficult to find, will it? BencherliteTalk 08:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Mitchell Hamline School of Law

On December 9 two law schools Hamline University School of Law and William Mitchell College of Law merged . The cleanest way to complete this appears to be to merge both source schools into a brand new article, Mitchell Hamline School of Law. Your input or contribution would be appreciated. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

While Hamline isn't that old, Mitchell is fairly old and thus probably has some decent history. I think the better option would be to create the Mitchell Hamline article and incorporate some information on the two schools' histories via summary style, rather than merging, and retain both articles more to discuss the history of the two schools... and possibly going forward if they maintain fairly distinct campuses. However, judging by the quality of the content at the Hamline article, it would probably be better to just redirect it. Generally speaking, care should be taken because the whole issue of what the merged school will look like is bound to change in the coming years. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Referencing case law

I have just created a quick stub on R v Pittwood - but to the untrained eye it looks unreferenced. How can one add a source for it other than the law report? GiantSnowman 13:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. I just grabbed something off Hein. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

GMO lawsuits

I have not dealt with the proper way to do case citations and legal briefs of key cases in Wiki articles. Could someone review my work here? Thanks --David Tornheim (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:RX holdings

I just added a number of US legal textbooks to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources#Law, and I have two questions/recommendations:

  1. Does WP:LAW currently have any link to this collection? If not, I think it might be useful to include at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Resources. Any thoughts on this?
  2. I'm certain there are others here at WP:LAW who would be able to expand this collection. My library got flooded a few years ago and I lost a good set of US law books including some really fundamental ones (Contracts, Constitutional Law, and Civil Procedure spring to mind), so if anyone could expand the resource coverage in that direction that would be much appreciated. Likewise, there is a lot of room for expansion in foreign (esp. civil law regimes) and alternative law (e.g. canon, talmudic, and sharia law; historic legal systems, etc.)

Thanks in advance for your help with this. -Thibbs (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates has been nominated for discussion

Category:Members of the Faculty of Advocates, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Scottish advocates. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Does Kaufman v. McCaughtry apply to "Religion = Atheism" in Wikipedia infoboxes?

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. In the discussion section, someone wrote that "In the US atheism has been defined as a religion for governmental purposes, and, on that basis, for all practical purposes does not qualify as a 'nonreligion'."[1]

I believe that this is based upon this case:

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-1914. Decided: August 19, 2005 ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html )

I have two questions.

First, is it worthwhile having a Wikipedia page on this legal decision?

Second, is this a valid argument for the purposes of the Wikipedia RfC in question?

I am really over my head on this one; an engineer trying to figure out legal questions is a lot like a typical lawyer trying to design a microprocessor... Any help would be most appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(...Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Guy, my apologies for not responding earlier this month. With respect to your first question, there are many notable circuit court cases that have their own articles (see, e.g., Glik v. Cunniffe, Moore v. Madigan, and Engblom v. Carey), and I think this case may also merit its own article. I also think the articles for the establishment clause and the free exercise clause could be expanded to discuss perspectives on atheism under the First Amendment.
As for your second question, it is true that courts in the United States define atheism as a "religion" for the purposes of the First Amendment, such that individuals may not be discriminated against on the basis of being an atheist and atheists are just as free to assemble and practice their beliefs as any other religion. That said, I don't think any court has offered a rigorous explanation of whether atheism qualifies as a religion in the philosophical sense of the term "religion." However, the court in Kaufman suggested that atheism could be considered a religion to the extent that the beliefs of an atheist hold a "place parallel to that filled by ․.. God in traditionally religious persons" (internal quotations omitted). On the other hand, the plaintiff in Kaufman apparently stated that atheism "is the antithesis of religion." I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that "In the US atheism has been defined as a religion for governmental purposes", but I do think it is fair to say that in the U.S., federal courts have ruled that a person cannot be discriminated against for being an atheist, and that atheists are just as free to assemble and practice their beliefs as any established religious group.
Let me know if you have any questions or if any of this doesn't make sense. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! that answers my specific question perfectly. If someone reading this decides to write an article on Kaufman v. McCaughtry, please drop me a note on my talk page -- I will unsubscribe to this page in week or two. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, please , if you have time, pay attention to this topic - Talk:Ages of consent in the United States#Serious mistake in New Mexico age of consent section. M.Karelin (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Would some member of this project who is a lawyer in a common-law country (and most Anglophone countries are common-law countries) please look at Murder of Anni Dewani? One user (multiple users, but evidently sockpuppets) keep claiming that it has been conclusively found by courts that the murder was a murder for hire. The murder was in South Africa, and it is my understanding that criminal law in South Africa is common law. What happened is that the criminals who murdered Anni Dewani confessed that they were part of a murder for hire. Her husband, Shrien Dewani, was then tried for arranging her murder, and was formally acquitted. It is my non-legally-educated understanding that, since common law is adversarial, courts do not actually make judicial findings in non-adversarial cases such as confessions (and the confessions, besides, were found in the actual trial to be lies), and that the "finding" that this was a murder for hire was simply an acceptance of a confession to that effect, and the details of the confession were lies (although the criminals who confessed did murder her). The murder appears to have been a botched carjacking which was then engineered to appear to be a murder for hire. Although an administrator is dealing with the sockpuppetry and BLP violations, a legal comment about the nonsense of claiming that this was still found to be a murder for hire would be helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert's summary is good, however I think a couple of extra details would be useful to complete the picture for someone unfamiliar. The criminals who "confessed" to a contract killing, were heavily incentivised to do so. All were facing life in prison if convicted for a carjacking/kidnappinog that resulted in murder. Their plea bargains resulted in vast sentence reductions; Tongo will be eligible for parole after serving 9 years, Qwabe after 17 years, and Mbolombo enjoys his freedom to this day as a result of being given full immunity from prosecution. Further to this, three of the four known conspirators to the crime actually admitted that this was a robbery gone wrong in their initial confessions, only to later change their "confessions" to say it was a contract killing.
Regarding court findings. Tongo and Qwabe were sentenced according to plea deals based on their (later proven false) confessions to a contract killing. Their confessions were never verified or tested for credibility. The plea deals were rubber stamped in short hearings in 2010 and 2012.
It is only in the 2012 trial of the fourth known conspirator (Mngeni) that the court made an overt decision to accept the contract killing theory as being truthful. In the 2014 trial of Shrien Dwani, the Mngeni trial findings were rendered worthless when it was revealed that they had been made on the basis of perjured evidence of both of the key witnesses - Mbolombo and Qwabe - the beneficiaries of the reduced sentences.
The crux of the issue here on Wikipedia is that this POV pusher/sock-puppeteer is trying to state the Mngeni finding as undisputed fact, despite it being later revealed to have been based on perjured evidence. The Mngeni court finding is referenced in the article but it is not given prominence in the lede. It is stated in the section that talks about the trial of Mngeni which is precisely where it should be stated. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I am only asking for a legal analysis of the technical legal point as to whether the acceptance of a confession in a common-law criminal court amounts to a judicial finding that the facts stated in the confession are true. The POV-pusher keeps insisting that there is a legal finding that the facts stated in the confession are true. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hello. I have created a Request for Comment, at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption. It says, "Should the article on gun laws in Illinois say that some local governments restrict magazine capacity for firearms, or should it say that they restrict magazine capacity for rifles and shotguns? This is a content dispute having to do with what might or might not be original research." Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion there. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

CfR notice

Category:Legal writing proposed for merger into Category:Legal communication (or conversion of the latter into a container category), due to redundancy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC for how to define child abuse in the lead of the Child abuse article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Child abuse#RfC: Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Claim and delivery" or "Replevin"?

I has been proposed that the article currently at Claim and delivery be moved to Replevin. The discussion is at Talk:Claim and delivery#Requested_move_22_January_2016, where it would be helpful to have input from members of this WikiProject. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Canadian royal succession

We need some legal minds & input at Monarchy of Canada, concerning the Canadian royal succession & the Feb 2016 Quebec ruling. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct name for UK election court case?

As per WP:BLP1E, I have suggested re-working the Miranda Grell article to be about the election court case that made her notable rather than about the individual. However, I am unclear on the formal title the case should take? I can't find the court proceedings. This article has the fullest details. The case was heard at Waltham Forest Magistrates' Court and appealed at Snaresbrook Crown Court. Any help gratefully received. Discussion taking place at Talk:Miranda Grell. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from the article) it isn't an election court case, but a criminal case dealt with by a Magistrates' Court and then by the Crown Court on appeal. These sorts of cases are generally not reported so it might be hard work to find a citation (and it would be original research I suspect). Francis Davey (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

There's an objection there today, in the first section of ERRORS, to the way the article handles U.S. Reports. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolved in this edit. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

National Security Law

National Security Law redirects to National Security Act. Is National Security Law a branch that deserves its own article? RJFJR (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Findings of fact in Wikipedia voice?

An article specific to a single, notable case - I'm seeing a lot of the findings of fact "lifted" to Wikipedia voice, that is, without in-text attribution in a section clearly entitled "Findings" or "Facts". Relatively new to law articles, I know some projects have style idioms, and I know we need to be jealous with Wikipedia voice. Is there a project style guide? Is this common practice or a reasonable style? Are we duty bound to preface many sentence in such articles with "The court found..." or is it more or less assumed from context? Newspapers get brave about stating facts a court finds, can we, or at least in a "findings' section of an article on a court case? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: MOS guidelines for law articles can be found at MOS:LAW. For articles about United States Supreme Court cases, editors should refer to WP:SCOTUS/SG. In general, I would recommend that for articles about legal cases, editors should include a "background" section that includes a summary of applicable law as well as the facts that gave rise to that specific case. When facts in a case are undisputed, then I think it is appropriate to state the facts in Wikipedia's voice. When facts at issue are disputed, it may be appropriate to summarize each party's position (a thorough editor should check the parties' briefs and accounts by third parties to see if there are conflicts).
Many Wikipedia articles are about appellate cases where facts were established by a lower tribunal; in those cases, the appellate court will usually accept the factual findings as correct (unless there was an error or an abuse of discretion in the course of establishing a fact). Although parties may still disagree about the facts, when a case is heard on appeal, disagreements usually center around whether the lower court correctly applied existing law to the facts of the case. That said, for articles about appellate cases, I think it is important to focus on the facts that were ultimately described in the court's opinion because interested readers will want to know how the court applied relevant law to the facts of the case as they were understood by the court.
Of course, if a Court's summary of facts are contradicted by other sources, editors should be careful to follow relevant policies, including WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP when an individual is accused of wrongdoing. I hope this explanation was helpful, and please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I see it is not a project style guideline, it is part of our MOS. I checked the project page before asking here at talk and did not find it; might a link to MOS:LAW be a worthy addition to the project page? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The specific issue is that the statements made in court during the appeal were demonstrably incorrect according to well regarded secondary sources, which have already been discussed on WP:RS and accepted. Greglocock (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to expand on Greglocock's comment. I think it is well established at WP that court testimony is not RS for facts. In this case the question involved the appellate court's review of the facts presented in a lower court. I can see how one might view the appellate court's review and summary of the facts as reliable but perhaps the most notable academic reviews of this case explains why WP should not condone such a thing. In his review Schwartz notes that legally since the defendant was asking for the appeal the appellate court was required to review all evidence provided by the plaintiff in the most positive light while doing the opposite for the defendant. Here is a link to the quote from the article and relevant citation [[2]]. In the case of the Grimshaw article I'm concerned that far too much weight is given to the views of the appellate court's findings of fact and final opinion. It should be noted that the article was in poor shape when HughD added extensive material covering the view of the court thus questions of undue weight should be considered after other article improvements. Springee (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
My usual approach is to look for published case comments in the law reviews to flesh out the background section. Those are definitely a lot better than summarizing the case by yourself, since it takes care of WP:DUE concerns. Treating a background section for a case almost like a plot summary, which seems to be how most non-stub case law articles work, is really worrisome. But what bothers me even more are those case law stubs that are basically one paragraph out of someone's outline and solely a reference to a casebook. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Good advice, see what law reviews, preferably multiple reviews, draw from the case. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Specifically case comments. Law review articles tend more to advance a particular position or one point of view than giving an exhaustive overview of the case itself. I don't think these are as common as they used to be, but if you're writing about one of those weird cases mentioned in passing in a casebook as important, you can rest assured at least one of the major academic law reviews ran a case comment on it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding link to MOS:LAW on this project page

Per Hugh's suggestion above, I agree that we should add a link to MOS:LAW somewhere on this project page. However, I'd like to solicit feedback from other project participants about where this information should be located. I think the best place would be in the left-hand column, somewhere near the top. What to other people think? Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Hidden, QC

Sir Anthony Hidden , QC has died. Seems to me that he is notable enough to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:William Mitchell College of Law has been nominated for discussion

Category:William Mitchell College of Law, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Mitchell Hamline School of Law. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paper Abortion

Possibly of interest to folks here; this is about a legal notion. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Battery"

The usage and primary topic of "battery" is under discussion, see talk:battery (electricity) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

List of courthouse buildings in the United States: A nominated for deletion

List of courthouse buildings in the United States: A, an article which may be of interest to this project, has been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of courthouse buildings in the United States: A. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Felony murder rule (Ohio)

Could someone more knowledgeable than me about this subject please take a look at Felony murder rule (Ohio) and my comments at Talk:Felony murder rule (Ohio)? The article seems to contradict a few sources I found. Also, is it necessary to have an individual article for each US state's felony murder rules, or should we merge them to Felony murder rule#United States? Mz7 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand of U.S. copyright law, I think the U.S. Court of Appeals judgment given at [3] is likely to be in the public domain in the U.S., as a work of an employee of the U.S. Federal government in the course of their employment. If it is, this would be an excellent source of material for the Mount Olivet Cemetery (Salt Lake City) article. However, I am not a lawyer, and this is mostly guesswork on my part. Does anyone know the real copyright status of U.S. federal court judgments?-- The Anome (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome: My understanding is that cases published in Federal Reporter and the United States Reports are in the public domain, though if headnotes or other explanatory material are added by another publisher, those may not be not be in the public domain. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@The Anome: Yeah, what @Notecardforfree: is basically correct. (I am a lawyer but I'm not your lawyer.) Something doesn't need to be public domain to be quoted/cited, though. —Luis (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Tie votes of the United States Supreme Court

New category, Category:Tie votes of the United States Supreme Court, please help populate with historical cases.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Neat list, thanks for creating it! I see it already has Lotus, which is the only one that matters to IP nerds ;) —Luis (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Trial of Oscar Pistorius has been nominated for discussion

Category:Trial of Oscar Pistorius, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Code (law)

See Talk:Code (law) for the discussion about "code (law)", "law code", "code of law", "code of laws" -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:United States Supreme Court patent case law has been nominated for discussion

Category:United States Supreme Court patent case law, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging to Category:United States patent case law. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Fictional United States federal judges has been nominated for discussion

Category:Fictional United States federal judges, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Cavanaugh v. Bartelt and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hi! I need advice regarding STEPHEN CAVANAUGH, Plaintiff, v. RANDY BARTELT, et al., Defendants. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. April 12, 2016, No. 4:14-CV-3183[4][5][6] as used at Flying Spaghetti Monster#Legal status[7].

Specifically, does this ruling apply to other states or just Nebraska? Does the citation (the notoriously biased RT.COM) accurately describe the result? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't even apply to Nebraska. It is binding solely within that one case. There would be claim and issue preclusion against bringing the same case again, but US District Courts do not generate binding precedent. That doesn't mean other courts won't review or consider previous rulings on similar issues, but it's only persuasive authority. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
As to the accuracy of the news media reports, it's totally bogus and oversimplified. The court actually does a great deal of work in examining the purported religious doctrines, how they appear to work, and moreover how this specific prisoner alleged that his beliefs were being impacted. It's very well-written and thought-provoking. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplication in articles on consanguinity, incest, etc.

I started to edit the article, Consanguinity, and made some revisions, but it gradually became clear to me that there is a great deal of duplication among articles related to that topic. Consanguinity, Kinship, Proximity of blood, Nepotism, Incest, Incest taboo, Sibling incest, Laws regarding incest, Prohibited degree of kinship, Avunculate marriage, Cousin marriage, Cousin marriage law in the United States by state, Cousin marriage court cases in the United States, Inbreeding, and many other articles appear to overlap considerably (as well as perhaps indicating rather an unhealthy obsession among Wikipedia editors). Much of the overlap involves laws, ancient and modern, concerning kinship, which is why I'm bringing the matter up to WikiProject Law; but the WikiProjects on anthropology, sociology, genetics, sexuality, psychology, and perhaps others may also be interested.

It seems to me that there needs to be considerable consolidation and reorganization among these articles, presumably with collaboration and co-ordination among the several interested WikiProjects. I'm sorry to say that I don't have time to participate in such an undertaking, but would be grateful if others did. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a basic anthropological, historical, legal, and biological topic; there being editorial interest in it isn't evidence of "an unhealthy obsession among Wikipedia editors". This is an important and naturally contentious topic, because the definition of incest varies so widely from culture to culture, even different time periods in the same culture, and is so tightly bound up in culturally subjective but experientially absolute senses of morality. Its importance level is trans-cultural, like marriage, murder, warfare, etc., even if the specifics are highly cultural, even subcultural. The subjective nature of the definition also means there's going to be a WP:POVFORKing tendency as a result.
I agree the present state of the articles is a mess. I would suggest the following structure, of four major articles, to which all the others refer for definitions and background instead of trying to recapitulate it over and over, in increasingly content-forked ways. There are just four major topics that are encyclopedically distinct, with all the others being subtopics:
  • Inbreeding, about the general biological concept. Human-related material confined to a WP:SUMMARY-style short section that refers people to the articles listed below. Should cover effects, evolutionary strategies for avoiding it, and intentional forcing of it by humans on livestock for selective breeding through artificial selection (and those two articles should probably merge into each other, BTW), and what the consequences of this have been.
  • Kinship, about the general anthropological concept, including its biological basis, its cultural developments, how it differs between cultures, plus factors like inheritance. Legal material would be summary only.
  • Incest, a generally historico-anthropological plus medical article, on the cultural, historical, and human biological matters. Legal issues presented only in SUMMARY form.
  • Incest (law), the place for the legal material, limited to human topics, including historical ones like medieval consanguinity-related inheritance laws, but mostly focused on modern law. This needs to be prose material about differing legal approaches to the topic and how they've changed over time. The present Laws regarding incest could be added at the end of this, or be moved to List of laws regarding incest, which actually describes its present content. (Both that title and Incest (law) are presently redirecting to Laws regarding incest). If there any any laws about inbreeding of livestock, they can be mentioned in a SUMMARY section, that directs readers to the Inbreeding article.
After such a restructuring, the rest of the articles in Category:Incest can have the redundant and sometimes conflicting material compressed out of them, by reference to whichever of the four main articles is appropriate in the context. I'm skeptical that many articles need to completely merge into any of these four major articles, however; it's normal for us to have term of art articles for any significant terminology (e.g. legal). AReaderOutThataway (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillsborough disaster

Verdicts have been reached at the second inquest into the Hillsborough disaster. They will be made public at 11:00 BST today. I've nominated the article at WP:ITN/C. One objector has raised a concern that the significance of the second inquest is not adequately explained in the article. Can this be fixed? Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert Provan

I've entirely rewritten the Robert Provan article after finding it AfD but could use some legal expert help in explaining the great significance of his unique lawsuit. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinions from those active in this project would also be welcome with regard to whether it makes sense to turn the Provan article into an article about the case, create a case article separately, or neither. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested Moves re "Judiciary"

I have just relisted requested move discussions on the following articles:

In each case the requester @Piotrus: is asking to rename the article to Judiciary of …. The only point of discussion in each RM is the meaning of the word Judiciary with no conclusive argument either way. Members of this project should weigh-in on these discussions and resolve the meaning of the word “Judiciary” as used in the context of these articles. Without explicit evidence to the contrary on a specific article, all these RMs should be closed in a similar manner. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

predicate offense

Surprised to see this is still a redlink... The dab for predicate just mentions it in the RICO context, but the concept is of course widely used outside of that statutory scheme. Project, anyone? postdlf (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

update a template (encyclicae and other papal documents)

See Template_talk:Infobox_encyclical#Use_for_all_papal_documents--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment and try to argue for the other side. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment at Common law

Please comment at Talk:Common_law#Request_for_comment_on_.22three_connotations.22. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Statutory holdback vs Retainage

See also: WP:WikiProject Business
I ran across two articles with the same meaning or definition but one I suppose is considered British English and the other American English.
  • Statutory holdback was created 24/4/2006, but is still a very short stub-class article.
  • Retainage was created 17/8/2011, being a lot newer, is an unassessed "start class" working on "C-class" article, that is much more improved.
It seems to me an article, with a different named pretty much same article, should be merged. Normally I would assume a newer article, if merged, would be merged into an older article, but I don't know the precedence on this. "Statutory holdback" was added to this project as well as WikiProject Law while "Retainage", the more advanced article, has none.
I am just exploring this before any action such as a RM. Otr500 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Bear in mind that when dealing with law concepts, something being the British English vs. American English term often matters a whole hell of a lot more, and can often be logical grounds for retaining both articles as explaining legal concepts in different, although related, legal systems. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree but I would submit that from what I have seen, in this case both concerning "Construction Law", derived from a "Common Law System", there apparently is no actual differences, minor or monumental. The "Retainage laws of the 50 states, meaning to hold back a certain amount (can vary by state law) of a contract for specific time (can also vary), seems identical and the reason I am bringing this up.
As it looks thus far a long term unimproved stub article, previously without even a source and tagged as such since 2009, still amounts to duplication. If someone can see a difference in this case, where merging these articles would be too different in law concept, that is what I am investigating.
If a merge is deemed warranted there may be valid reasoning why (be it the article creation date or just consensus), the larger article should be merged to the smaller. Also, if it is deemed compatible to explore a merge it would also disallow any possible "world view" tag. Otr500 (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
My point in noting that the difference lies not merely in an ENGVAR issue is that there is probably sufficient material to flesh out a full length article on either topic within their own legal traditions. Construction law, especially this portion, which would be a subset of commercial real estate law, is going to be a very highly explored area of legal practice and scholarship. Just link the two together, pointing out that retainage is a term for a similar concept in US law. Even looking at the Google hits, it's clear that "retainage" is the far more common term, at least today. However, the "statutory holdback" hits primarily deal with Canada. To me it's the same deal as distinguishing culpable homicide from involuntary manslaughter: Virtually the same definition, and in many respects same derivation, but they're concepts with entirely separate, and quite long, bodies of jurisprudence. You really can't adequately address them in a comprehensible fashion within the same article.
Anyway, I did check Black's Law Dictionary 9th ed. "Retainage" is defined as the percentage of payment by a landowner to a contractor that the landowner withholds until the construction is satisfactorily completed and the mechanics' liens have been released. It's said to be synonymous with "retained fund". The phrase "statutory holdback" is not defined, but "holdback" is, and simply refers to a piece of payment withheld by one party until the other party satisfies some condition in the contract. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I will explore finding more material when I have time because I agree (bet that was unexpected) both articles can be expanded and offer unique perspectives. I suppose I like to try to explore looking at things from one angle or the other and seeing if someone's comments or a debate can clarify one of them. The main thing is that long term tagged career stub articles do not help readers or Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Constitution of Laos

I have created a lead section for the Constitution of Laos (diff). Could someone please review for correctness. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A discussion of interest to this project...

...can be found at Talk:Prostitution#Sin. BMK (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Judiciary, judical system or ?

Expert opinion would be useful at Talk:Judiciary#Name_of_this_article; the discussed standardization of naming concerns 100+ articles and categories ("Judiciary of Foo" vs "Judical system of Foo" vs few other possible options). Please comment there if possible so that the discussion can be centralized. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

On the matter I came to post about: (Couldn't find this project when I looked for it, to post THIS talk page, but later did, so this clones the posts on the VP...

re: Hortonville Area School District (edit talk links history), specifically this edit and this stub page creation: Hortonville_Joint_School_District_No._1._v._Hortonville_Education_Ass’n

Not being a lawyer, I stumbled over this page title as a redlink dealing with another needed clarification edit this morning. While I've some familiarity with the law, and know this case was a Landmark precedent that has impacted my entire adult life.
 • Since I don't have the time to do this justice, nor the interest in the law, nor on the MOS, and formatting of legal articles, those on Law and other linkable Legal articles, Law templates, etcetera...
 • After looking for a Law and Legal task force, etc. like the Military History group to no avail, I've no recourse to remanding the matter I created as a stub (with my expansion of the case in Hortonville's section) to interested parties with the right credentials.
 • So I strongly suggest some qualified individuals please follow up the many web citable sources and make this a good article per our MOS standards. Best regards FrankB 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Erm, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Strangely enough, by circuitous means of finishing my original edit several article links before, I found a reference to that on the talk page. Don't have a clue why it wasn't found in the listings under Wikiprojects. I did look. Still, my eyesight has been failing for years, so perhaps I just missed it. Copying this there now. FrankB 18:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fabartus: When writing articles about SCOTUS cases, I recommend using WP:SCOTUS/SG and MOS:LAW for any questions about formatting or style. Feel free to contact me if you need any help with while writing the article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fabartus: I just finished a major re-write of the article. Let me know if you have any suggestions or recommendations. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Notecardforfree, it looks great. Please check my 'impact' addition (scope tweak) of adding "the ruling also affirmed that such state laws were legal" in the lead.

Merger proposal

It has been proposed that Japan foreign marriage be merged into Mail-order bride. Please comment at Talk:Japan foreign marriage#Merger proposal. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My Shakespeare-related edit was reverted (but for that matter, I see now, the same editor had reverted a similar edit on the same grounds before) under the claim that the terms "piracy" and "pirating", while value-laden, are appropriate when used by multiple sources. The discussion is here.

Aside from the fact that I could point to previous consensus that "copyright infringement" should be preferred over "piracy" when possible, I think there is no need to go through that route, because copyright did not exist at all in English law (or any country's law) during the period discussed in the Bad quarto article. Can a theatrical script be "pirated", and is it appropriate to claim in the lede that it was done "without authorization", when there was nothing requiring authorization in the first place? I mean, it is always possible to claim that something was done "without authorization" if, literally, authorization was not requested or obtained, but it seems very biased language to state that on Wikipedia for cases where no authorization is required and people are free to act as they do. Nevermind "piracy".

LjL (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Category for Discussion

It is Category:United States deinstitutionalization case law. The discussion can be found here[8]. Please come over to join in the discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Missing article: Native American nation

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Major missing article: Native American nation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Kazaro's talk page concern

Hi, I didn't join your WikiProject here yet, but I have a question: Is it possible or rather are you allowing any user talk pages on inputting your stub projects on their own talk page? As I linked on this title of the message, I observed that this Wikipedia user is putting the said stub on his/her talk page that is NOT your concern / not related to the topic. Can you please investigate this? Some users are (I don't think it this way, but I feel it is) abusing those stub to use for themselves. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Can you give an example of what you see to be a problem? Shouldn't you bring this to WP:AN/I, and supply diffs instead of reporting the behavioral problem here? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Law Reviews less reliable than Science Journal?

I am curious if attorneys here agree or disagree with this comment by ArtifexMayhem that suggests an article in a biology journal is as reliable (if not more so) than a law review when discussing contracts related to GMOs. This comment was in this discussion. It is my understanding that attorneys, not scientists are specialists/experts in law. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Scientists can certainly figure out if an agreement allows them do perform the research they want or not. Regardless, it would help if you could supply a law review article on the topic. It is very difficult to agree or disagree on the reliability of a hypothetical. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I think attorneys will disagree with you on that. I haven't seen one of these contracts, but I have a hunch they are not that simple. Even your typical credit card agreement, lease agreement, or utility agreement is almost incomprehensible. Many of these agreements I have read are filled with fine print asking one to waive many rights, such as to litigate if you have a problem and forcing Arbitration instead. Have you ever read the fine print on the web-sites you must click on? I have met attorneys who do not have the time to read and decipher them.
I have not searched for law review articles on this subject--yet. But I did do so on GMO regulations, and I have seen where scientists wrote on the law in published journals and their writing did not comport with the numerous law reviews on this subject. I suspect attorneys (experts in law with Juris. Doctorates), will agree with me that if you want to know the law, consult with an attorney expert in the subject area/jurisdiction, and that (current) law reviews are the best RS, not science journals. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
That's all a bit off the sourcing issue at hand (btw: contracts and agreements are not laws). My concern is that if we are going to include claims about "these restrictive end-user agreements" then we will need supporting sources that show needed research is not being done because of them. That does not seem to be the case at this time. Good luck on your search. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Notre Dame Law Review

In the article titles Admission to the Union I cited an article in the Notre Dame Law Review and linked to that journal's title. It was a red link and I found that mine was one of three links to it in the article space and that many articles on individual law reviews exist. So I created the article titled Notre Dame Law Review. It is almost as stubby as it can get; it needs work. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Urgent attention needed at allodial title to address a morass of tax protestor nonsense

Allodial title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently this is actually a term historically, and has been remade a term in some states possibly as a synonym to fee simple absolute (or a type of fee simple absolute with no encumbrances perhaps?). However, a lot of the concept has been made up out of whole cloth by tax protestors, to the point that much of the article is either insidiously inconsistent or even downright incorrect. People have been complaining about it for years on the talk page. I'm at an absolute loss for what to do with it as well. Given it is a historical concept, though I'm not sure what it is (it's possible it's an obsolete civil law concept), I doubt deletion would be the right outcome, and the result would be just to improve it. Well... here I am to see if it can be improved. Any help would be welcomed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What do the law review articles say about it? Is that the RS we are using? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I will put some RS at the page to consider. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
From my brief look at the RS, I'm confused about the claim "this is made up by the tax protesters". It looks like it was a real concept in law in the early U.S. And even in Nevada it is present in the statutes: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 115.010. I see other statutes that use it in Kentucky, KRS § 381.020. Also N.J. Stat. § 46:3-6. Minnesota has it in their constitution: Minn. Const., Art. I, § 15.
We have recent cases: People v. Johnson-El, 299 Mich. App. 648.
So I want to understand the problem. Are the "tax protesters" using good RS or not? That's what I think we should be concerned about. If not, let's see the examples. Obviously there is good RS out there to describe the term...
--David Tornheim (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: I do see you deleted the stuff on the talk page written by the tax protesters that had nothing to do with the article and sourcing but just their own beliefs that I think we can safely say have little to do with the law of today (and probably not much to do with the law of the past either). I haven't yet looked at the rest of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments requested at WP:RSN

Fabrickator just asked a good question at RSN#Age of Consent template that I think could use input from editors with specialized knowledge about editing law-related articles in terms of the best sources for articles that list specific legislation in different jurisdictions, for example. Please leave a comment on the thread at RSN so as not to split the conversation. Thank you! —PermStrump(talk) 18:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Major missing article

We appear to have no article on trademark strength (first source for ya: [9]), which should have redirects from strong mark, strong trademark, strong servicemark, strength of trademarks, strength of a trademark, etc. This is a key concept in intellectual properly law and is the principal cause of intentional misspelling in trademarks (the second most common, today, being scarcity of plain-wording domain names for interesting words and sensible short phrases).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Law clerks for retired judges?

The List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 8) has several law clerks for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006, as recent as 2015. Is this legit? Does Day O'Connor still have law clerks? --bender235 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, retired Supreme Court justices are assigned one clerk per term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Notecard is correct....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

New article review: Impact litigation

I know nothing about law, so whatever I just assembled to make impact litigation probably needs at least minor fixing. The topic seems important, with decades of scholarly discussion and policy implications, and there are plenty of sources available to expand it. Thanks, FourViolas (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act is too technical and may contain original research

Hello Legalpedians,

I want to drop something off in your in-tray: Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. I passed through it in order to clear it out of the underlinked backlog, and found that the article was about as easy to read as a Magic Eye painting. I suspect it would benefit from de-jargon-ification. Additionally, the bottom section of the article ("Interpretation of Costa-Hawkins") cites one law firm's blog as its only source and has a strong whiff of WP:OR about it. I hope one of you folks can cast a more expert eye over the article at some point.

Thanks, A Traintalk 21:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_19&oldid=1142660737"