This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Unquestionably, yes. The case is notable enough and complex enough that it merits its own Wikipedia page, yes, without even considering the BLP issues that also favor doing so. It will be challenging to do a good job of it, but that was not your question. There is both a district court case and a mandamus action in the Court of Appeals, and they are interrelated. Are you asking what to put in some field in the infobox? (which one?) "It depends. Both. Yes."? jhawkinson (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
jhawkinson, Psiĥedelisto - thanks for your input. I'm a relatively novice editor and have investigated a bit more and learned that WP has Split section templates to elicit more discussion of proposed splits. So I've added the templates to the Michael Flynn page and will see where that leads. I have read a fair amount about the case (primary documents and discussions by lawyers at sites like Lawfare and Just Security, along with news reports), but given my relative lack of editing experience and the fact that I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an ideal candidate for carrying it out; however, if no one else volunteers, I'm game to work on it with mentoring, and thanks for the mentoring offer. Have I understood correctly that I should now list it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_article_splits#Awaiting_consensus ? TIA. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: - thanks for your help. Agreed that it's an atypical situation where I posted a question here in addition to the Flynn Talk page; I wasn't familiar with the Split templates and hadn't realized that it should only be discussed in one place, and I'd already raised the topic both there and here prior to learning about / adding the Split templates. I hope I wasn't mistaken to bring it here after raising it there, but I figured both communities might have opinions about it. There's a lot to learn as a novice here! FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: - At this point, there's unanimous support from four people here, support from several others on the Flynn Talk page where I originally raised it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Flynn#Should_a_new_page_be_created_for_United_States_v._Flynn_and_most_of_the_contents_about_this_case_moved_to_that_page ), and I checked back with the two people there who expressed reservations, and neither has strong feelings against a split as long as a general overview is left there, which I agree makes sense. I'm still a somewhat novice editor and don't have any experience with page splits, and I'm wondering if this is sufficient consensus to move forward, or if we need to leave the question open longer. If we start to move forward, I'm wondering if it makes sense for me to first work on it in my sandbox, so that I know how to preserve content attribution, etc. I assume that I should use the template for District Court cases, since the appellate court case is about a writ of mandamus, not an appeal, but I'm not certain. I'd appreciate advice, thanks. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, this case has a lengthy and complex history that is worthy of its own page. At this point, the case itself distracts the reader from the rest of his profile. I suggest looping in Judge Sullivan's page too. There has already been a WP:COATRACK complaint on that page's talk section. 168.215.97.5 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mean that we start a third discussion. I meant that we adjust that page's section on US v Flynn too, once the case has its own page.168.215.97.5 (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Unquestionably yes. I don’t mean to be a distraction but this deserves its own article. This issue is bigger than Flynn. It is so much broader and encompasses so many people in a substantial way.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@168.215.97.5: I'm not fearful, simply acknowledging that this is more time- and energy-consuming for someone who isn't experienced to take on. If you're anxious for it to happen "already," nothing is stopping you from taking your own advice and doing it yourself. It's not going to happen quickly if I'm the one doing it, as I'll need to learn a bunch in order to do it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: I am not anxious for anything to happen already. On multiple replies, you've mentioned your fear in taking charge to create the page because you don't know what to do, despite support from people like @Soibangla: and @Psiĥedelisto:. I was trying to encourage you; no need to be defensive.168.215.97.5 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: - I know that I thanked you on the Flynn page, but just wanted to add a thanks here as well, as letting me know about the possibility of a Draft page addressed my concerns about this being too big a job to take on without help. We've now started the draft. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
As the editor who posted to say they felt the main article on Flynn was in danger of becoming a coat-rack article (see here), I'd suggest it does merit its own page. But I'm in the UK and know nothing of this subject, so can't contribute further. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Should we add a marker to this section, closing the discussion and noting that the result was to create a draft page for the case? If so, it looks like that also cuts off the discussion below, since the "New draft page for U.S. v. Flynn" is a subsection here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
No one was stepping up to start a draft for the case, so I did, and created an info box and wrote a little bit. To be clear, this is a page for the case in the District Court, and not the one in the Court of Appeals. Perhaps a page for that decision is warranted as well. If so, the name of that case is In Re: Flynn.
Yes, and there's consensus from a lot of people that this warrants a page (and it's received a lot of coverage in the media). I absolutely understand and agree regarding sources. There are lots... this is just the beginning of the draft! Lots more writing and sources to follow. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)::
I'm a little unclear why you asked then. I didn't read everything in the previous section. There are two cases. I'm assuming the appellate case is the more notable of the two and it is the one that I am hearing about on the media right now. Are you able to differentiate which case(s) the WP:RS is talking about? Have they discussed both or just one? If there is limited coverage of the lower court or appellate court case, then it is probably acceptable to merge them into one page named for the more notable of the cases. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I do agree with the others that there is enough coverage for the case, but I am just not familiar enough with it to know if it warrants two pages or just one. That's where WP:GNG comes in. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant if making a page for US v. Flynn was notable enough, not if there should be a separate page for In Re: Flynn, which I think now is what you meant. I wasn't asking anything, though, just stating I had made the draft. In the previous section, there had been discussion as to if there should be a page for the appellate case or the district case. So I was clarifying. Anyways, my inclination is to say that, no, it doesn't. I think both cases meet the criteria for GNG, but ultimately, coverage on the appellate case is about the larger questions for which he is on trial in district court. The district court case has received a lot of coverage in the media and has been discussed by impartial sources. JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@JapanOfGreenGables: Thanks for the further clarification. I will explain more below. One suggestion is to assume readers here don't know anything about either case. Clearly differentiate exactly which case is which, which title goes with which case, and which reliable sources go with each case. Without this information, it is much harder for editors not familiar with the WP:RS to answer the questions. For example:
U.S. v. Flynn, federal district court, location,, date filed, list of reliable sources as links
In Re: Flynn, Nth Cir., date filed, list of reliable sources as links
If you have links of relevant discussions and/or sections in the article that have relevant material, provide them in the outline too. Otherwise, it's too hard to find the relevant information. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
JapanOfGreenGables - Actually, I'd started working on it but hadn't yet saved my draft, as I was waiting until I was also ready post all of the necessary notices on the Talk pages for the US v Flynn draft page, Flynn's page, Sullivan's page, and here, as well as updating the status on the Proposed article splits page. As noted above, some content will be split from the Flynn page (and perhaps the Sullivan page), a split request was posted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_article_splits#New_requests), and there has also been discussion of splitting on the Flynn Talk page, so it requires more than just starting a draft page for the case and noting it here. As best I can tell, you haven't posted any notices about the split anywhere, and perhaps you weren't aware of that aspect, depending on whether you read all of the discussion above and on the Flynn Talk page. Now that you're aware, how do you want to proceed? (Are you going to post the required notices?) I will wait to hear back about that before I edit your draft to add what I'd drafted. I suggest that no one start adding to your draft until this is resolved. What do you think? Sorry if my own editing inexperience contributed to the confusion. When I first posted my question above, I wasn't aware that there is a formal process for splitting a section from a page, so I didn't label my question properly here or on the Flynn talk page, which is where the issue first arose. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
FactOrOpinion You're right. I hadn't known. You can also feel free to replace what I started. I won't mind or be offended. I'm a novice as well, probably greener than you. I had thought you hadn't posted a draft because you hadn't been comfortable doing so given above. So that's my take -- to erase what I had posted unless you'd rather keep it, since this is your project. You tell me how I can help. Oh captain, my captain! JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
JapanOfGreenGables I would spend less time worrying about the formalities of the move/split request and work cooperatively on the draft provided by Mathglot: Draft:United_States_v._Flynn. Continue this discussion on the talk page of that article rather than here. The most important thing is to make a list of reliable sources that discuss the case and use that as the basis of the material you add to the article. You can rely on more experienced editors to worry about the mechanics of the move. Feel free to copy anything of relevance you find in other articles--particularly material that is well referenced. You can ask for help on the move mechanics Teahouse or here. Even if the split/move doesn't happen, the material you create can be used to help improve the content of the page that is was to be moved from.
JapanOfGreenGables No problem. 168.215.97.5 was mistaken that I was fearful; I just didn't want to take all of the work on myself, and it wasn't until Mathglot explained that we could use a Draft page that it became clear to me how the work could be split up and that we didn't actually have to split the material from the Flynn page in one fell swoop (I still need to thank Mathglot here, though I did on the Flynn Talk page). Maybe more experienced editors already understood that, but I haven't ever worked on a split or a draft, so this is all new to me, and there's a bunch to learn. I've started a Talk page for the article draft and posted some background there + an invitation to discuss the page structure. I do have a bit of content to add to the draft and should be able to get to that later tonight. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Just giving credit where it's due: I didn't provide a draft, I merely suggested one. It was created by JapanOfGreenGables in this edit. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey everyone. First, I just wanted to say I'm excited to join the WikiProject for law! I'm new to this kind of thing so please don't be afraid to send me a message if I'm doing anything wrong or if you have any advice.
I'm being trying to flesh out Public law, which is ranked as being at Start level and top importance. So, partly I wanted to flag I'm doing that work, and if anyone wants to help.
But, I'm struggling with DOI in a citation. As you can see on the page in citations 10 an 14, I'm doing something wrong and can't figure it out. Could someone correct them and/or tell me what I'm doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JapanOfGreenGables (talk • contribs)
My opinion is that (1) at least some these can sometimes be RSs for factual information on legal issues (i.e., written in WP's voice), and (2) all of them can be RSs for legal commentary (i.e., Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion) with the possible exception of emptywheel. I'm curious to hear others' views on this.
These sites vary in the fraction of their pages devoted to factual info vs. op-ed-like columns. My sense is that SCOTUSblog has the largest percentage of factual pages; the (factual pages):(op-eds) ratio for Lawfare and Just Security are in the middle; and Volokh and emptywheel are probably all op-eds, though those columns may still contain considerable amounts of factual info.
Re: (1), I consider SCOTUSblog to be a RS for diverse factual info about SCOTUS cases. The Volokh columns often contain some factual info from experts. The latter three sites have posted a lot of the primary documents from the various investigations of Russian interference in our elections and legal cases that came out of those investigations (which is how I became familiar with them), and each also addresses some other legal matters.
Re: (2), all of these have commentary on legal cases from people with different kinds of expertise.
A bit more info:
SCOTUSblog used to be published by Bloomberg, but as far as I can tell is now technically self-published. Factual pages are neutral and commentary may not be.
Volokh used to be at the Washington Post and is now at Reason, but they have independent editorial control there, so are now more like a self-published blog. Not neutral.
Lawfare is published in cooperation with The Brookings Institution, but I think has some independence. Factual pages are neutral and commentary isn't.
Just Security is published by the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law School. Factual pages are neutral and commentary isn't.
emptywheel is a self-published blog started by Marcy Wheeler and used to be housed at Firedoglake. There are a few people who post columns there; I mostly go for Marcy Wheeler's columns, which are factually reliable and often have extremely detailed analyses of legal documents, including evidence, but are pretty much all mixed with non-neutral commentary. I can't really speak to the other authors.
There are also other online fora of this sort that I don't read much, such as Balkinization. If this topic is of interest to anyone and you read other fora like these, please introduce them into the conversation.
-- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
An interesting qusetion. One thing to note is that judgments and filings are often available from official sources, or "semi-official" archives of judgments. I'd assume given an article reporting no the judgment and the judgment itself, one would take the article. Law has this strange property that the judgments are binding. I imagine there is often a place for a critical, external examination of cases if there is controversy and it might be better to have a qualified third party do it, rather than do this analysis oneself on wikipedia. There is also a field for legal academics. --Talpedia (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Talpedia: Yes, one can find primary documents from official sources, but the sites are sometimes more convenient (e.g., here's a single page with all of Flynn's plea documents -- for U.S. v. Flynn -- instead of having to look at them separately: [1]). These sites are a source of commentary, since we should not add WP:OR. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm still in the "learner" stage as an editor here, and I've explored a bit more and discovered that there's been some relevant discussion at the WP:RSN (e.g., the third paragraph here: [2]. I still have a couple of questions, such as whether Lawfare and Just Security are considered WP:SPS, but now think it's more appropriate for me to ask that at the WP:RSN. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Considering SCOTUSblog as an example, the website has TLS certificate issued by Let's Encrypt, which essentially means the interaction with the site is encrypted, but there is no verification of who is actually running the site. Therefore it's self-published. To use a post by a recognized expert we would have to establish:
SCOTUSblog can be trusted to post the information from the expert without alteration, and to not alter it after it has been posted
that the SCOTUSblog account purportedly belonging to an expert really does belong to that expert; this might be established by the expert making reference to his/her SCOTUSblog account in some reliable source, such as an online profile hosted by a university or government agency. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
We are certainly entitled to rely on the fact that reliable sources within the legal information sphere themselves rely on SCOTUSblog as a reliable source. Since the outlet indicates the author of every post, including many law professors and other known practitioners, those authors can speak up if they feel their writing has been altered, or that things they did not write have been attributed to them. BD2412T15:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h:SCOTUSblog is very well regarded [3], and the site is explicit about who runs it and corrections: [4]. There are already hundreds of references on WP citing SCOTUSblog. My concern is more about separating out the factual vs. opinion content on these kinds of sites, and for those that are WP:SPS, they're not supposed to be used to support claims about WP:BLP, and I (personally) need to get clearer on distinguishing between claims about a case involving a living person vs. claims about the person, as some discussion of cases may include statements about the people involved. I also need more clarity about how to decide whether a site is/isn't a WP:SPS. For example, Laware is published by the Lawfare Institution in cooperation with Brookings, and Just Security is published by a center at NYU. They are distinct from both the newspaper blogs and the personal blogs that WP contrasts in sections 2 and 3 at WP:V. But again, these issues are probably better discussed at WP:RSN. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@FactOrOpinion: Previously you asked Mathglot and me about these same questions, and we had suggested WP:RS/N. However, because you already have quite a bit of good feedback here, I suggest that rather than repost the questions there, that you post a note about this discussion at WP:RS/N (and probably also at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard) with both a link and a permalink, and ask editors to comment here. This consolidates the discussion. Do other editors agree with me on this? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You had asked here and we answered here (at your talk page):
I will try to remember to add permalinks later. I might copy over some of my responses here. Mathglot Will you plan to copy any of your responses here too? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Just to be clear: I posted here first, then realized that my questions aren't really about whether these particular online legal fora are WP:RS (they sometimes are, depending on context). Once I became clearer on my actual questions, I was uncertain where to post them, which is why I then asked you and Mathglot about that on my talk page, linking to this as background. I asked you related-yet-very-different questions, not the same ones as here. It doesn't make sense to ask WP:RS/N and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard editors to comment here, as this doesn't capture my real questions, which they boil down to: (1) how do we determine what constitutes WP:SPS, in particular with respect to WP:BLPSPS? and (2) if a non-biographical WP article includes significant info about a WP:BLP, is the entire page considered BLP or only the text specific to the person? (I'm wondering about that specifically in the context of WP articles about legal cases where plaintiff and/or defendant are living persons, but Q2 isn't actually limited to legal articles.)
WP's description of SPS here [5] really doesn't do a good job, as noted here: [6]. The former needs a better, more detailed description of how to tell if author and publisher are the same, a description that accounts for edited online fora, especially those sponsored by research institutions (e.g., universities, think tanks). I'm still in the midst of writing up a clear and concise version of my questions to pose at WP:RS/N, and I'll link back to the discussion here and on my talk page for background, but I'd like further discussion to focus on my real questions, not how I first articulated it here. Thanks again for your (plural) help with this, as the discussion with you and Mathglot helped me get clearer still on my actual questions and helped me identify some additional search terms, which in turn led me to other relevant discussion, like the WP SPS discussion I just cited. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I work for Supreme (brand), the clothing and skateboarding brand. Multiple false and deceptive statements have been added to Supreme (brand)#Lawsuits to deceive readers into buying counterfeit "Supreme"-branded goods. I have posted a request that independent editors review Talk proposals for corrections and updates atTalk:Supreme (brand)#Multiple false statements about counterfeit_goods Since this is potentially a contentious matter, it is outside the purview of the “Request Edit” queue and I thought members of this project might be interested in doing a review. Thank you. Oa4251 (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: It looks to me like Oa4251 is already abiding by the WP:COI policy (stating the CoI and not editing any main pages, only raising issues on talk pages), and I don't think s/he is making any legal threats. @Oa4251: On the Wikipedia libel page (here: [7]), they note "If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please: E-mail us with details of the article and error" and provide an email address. So the company can contact Wikipedia directly if it's not resolved. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
There are definitely some questionable sources in the lawsuits section (one of them misspells "European" in a headline). BD2412T18:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Looks good to me! One thing I'd do: add a "Background" § explaining a little bit about what qualified immunity is and why people feel this law is needed.In the spirit of WP:QPQ, perhaps you can review my request below?Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please alwaysping!07:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I've now updated the article List of United Kingdom Supreme Court cases to cover cases from around October 2018 to date as it had only been partially completed since October 2018. I'm probably going to continue to update the brief narrative on the summary of the decision working backwards.
However, what I have noticed is that indicates that there are only around 89 articles on individual cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. (The equivalent US category has 3,300 cases covered in individual articles).
My view is that almost all cases decided by the UK Supreme Court will be notable and should warrant their own article (there may be a few exceptions to this rule for procedural matters) and therefore we are missing up to 650 articles (to date).
It would obviously be a massive project to get all of these covered in Wikipedia (in a similar manner to the coverage for US cases) but even if we can only cover some of them any improvement to this area would be appreciated.
I might be interested in doing a couple of these. Do you have an example of a good wikipedia article on a supreme court case, so that I can imiate it? --Talpedia (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't really have an specific examples of what is good and what isn't good. You can find the current cases for which there are articles at: . These vary from some which are very long articles including significant amounts of the judgement to much shorter more concise case summary (and some which are really only stubs that need improvement). Tracland (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Changing the US v. Stone redirect to a disambiguation page?
Currently, United States v. Stone redirects to the Criminal investigation section of Hutaree. That section includes information about an Eastern District of MI court case, United States v. Stone et al., that was appealed to the 6th Circuit. There is no hatnote there about other meanings for "United States v. Stone."
United States v. Stone could also refer to the District of DC court case involving Roger Stone that arose out of the Special Counsel investigation. There is no page for this case either, but there's considerable information about it in a section of Roger Stone's page: [8].
I did a WP search for United States v. Stone and see that there's also an 1864 Supreme Court case by that name; there is no article or section of an article devoted to that case, but it's briefly mentioned in the Curtilage article. There's also an 1882 Supreme Court case with a similar name that isn't discussed anywhere.
And a quick internet search shows that there are other cases by this name.
Rather than adding a hatnote to the Hutaree page, I'm inclined to edit the US v. Stone redirect, changing it to a disambiguation page listing the 3 (maybe 4) possibilities I identified above. Just checking whether the Hutaree case should be primary and I should instead add a hatnote there, and either way, if there's any other court case by this name that's important to include. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
That is entirely permissible, and in this case, I think, commendable. The term is clearly ambiguous to various possible notable terms. BD2412T18:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, I went ahead and changed United States v. Stone from a redirect to disambiguation (and if someone feels strongly that it should instead be a redirect page with hatnotes elsewhere, feel free to revert and add the hatnotes). I tried to get the names right in terms of MOS:LAW, but I don't have a lot of experience with that and would appreciate someone double-checking and correcting the name(s) if something is off, thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
(Extra-)low-voltage wiring, from more than a technical perspective
Thoughts on renaming List of law firms to Lists of law firms? It is mostly about other lists. Only some firms in some US states are actually listed, and those sub lists are of dubious usefulness. The country-level lists are more comprehensive and provide more useful information. Awbfiend (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Colleagues Lawyers and Jurist,
words are important in our profession
we talk about Citizens, People and Persons, not "patients"
many Juridical pages use terms like "patient". let's avoid those medicistic decay
we shall enforce our words
thanks activists!
Jurist75 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, I've been undoing some edits on this topic, not because I don't agree with them, but because sometimes they are slightly damaging the meaning of sentences. E.g. "Involuntary citizen" versus "Involuntary patient".
I don't know what the best use of language is. What is your argument against the use of the term patient and what do you think a good alternative is here. The advantage of the use of the term "patient" is that it describes a legal and bureaucratic reality rather than a statment of fact, for example in medical articles people like to use terms like "people with mental health disorders" which I think is *worse* than patient because i. it assumes the diagnosis is correct, ii. it sort of implies the diagnosis is permanent, iii. it implicitly assumes that that the actions of the medical community is correct. The concept of "patient" gives one "theoretical room" for saying should they be a patient? is the diagnosis correct etc etc? If you don't even refer the social relationship you can damage reasoning. The fully expanded version is "citizens diagnosed with with a mental health disorder who are within a patient-doctor relationship as legally defined" - I think it's a bit unwieldy.
Can someone with some knowledge and/or experience of public international law (and in particular the law of treaties) please review this infobox? I think some of the fields in it don't really make sense. For example, there is a field "date_sealed", when I don't believe the word "sealed" is normally used in the law of treaties, I believe this is meant as a reference to what is normally called ratification/acceptance/approval/accession. Similarly, "date_effective" should probably actually use the words "entry in to force" instead of "effective". I started a discussion about this on the talk page. Thank you SJK (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Certain lawyers notability
Hi all, I recently came across Allen Snyder (lawyer), who doesn't appear to be particularly notable except for having been a clerk for two Supreme Court justices and being a nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I was going to nominate for AFD, but the on the law clerks lists, they are all red-linked. Do we consider law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States to be notable without coverage to back it up? Is there a policy I've missed that covers this? Best wishes, Eddie891TalkWork15:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
My personal opinion – merely being a law clerk, even for a Supreme Court justice, is not enough for notability. So, if those lists belong at all, I don't think they should be red-linked (it implies we ought to have an article on someone who is not sufficiently notable for one.) But, being nominated by the President to a senior federal court, yes. I think positions on the senior federal courts are inherently notable positions. (I know some people don't like the concept of "inherent notability", even argue it is contrary to policy, but my view is that Wikipedia follows it in practice.) Even if the nomination fails, that is likely to produce coverage in the media over the nomination fight in the Senate, which again is going to make the person notable. SJK (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I have submitted a draft article about a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions and former Partner at O'Melveny & Myers over at AfC Draft:Bimal_V._Patel. I have a COI, so I'd appreciate any input and/or an AfC review. Capecodcontributor (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I have a question about the use of the term "legalization" when it comes to initiatives and legislative acts concerning cannabis. A legal authority says Legalization ultimately means the ability to lawfully regulate a given activity . This sounds reasonable to me: in other words, if an activity is taxed and regulated by a government, it is to be described on WP as legalized by that government, not decriminalized, regardless of what the sponsors say. This is a current issue at MORE Act. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I switched the wording to "decriminalization" at that article purely because news sources have tended to use it. States would still have to create legislation if it's removed from the scheduled drugs list. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thing is, sources disagree or even use both terms interchangeably in the same report, like Newsweek did under the headline 60% of Republicans Support Kamala Harris' Proposal to Legalize Marijuana Nationwide. This is important as commentators point out it is a crucial policy difference between Harris and Biden, "She's contrasted with Vice President Biden by affirming that ... it should be more than decriminalized; it should be legalized" (KCRW}. In this case I think it would be logical to get consensus on what the actual legal differentiation is, e.g. using sources like the first one I offered here. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Check some sources, but I think the word "regulated" might be useful here (as more precize and emphatic version of legalized). I think the Netherlands and Spain are examples of countries that have decriminalized aspects of drug use without necessarily regulating. I think most US states are going for the "regulated" approach. --Talpedia (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Decriminalize is technically correct in referring to the MORE Act but legalize is the more accurate term so I would use that. The way the word decriminalize is most commonly understood, at least when referring to cannabis policy, is the removal of criminal penalties so that only a small fine applied. It is sometimes also used to refer to the complete removal of all penalties (legalization), but I would say use the more accurate term here to avoid confusion. To further support this point, note that NORML, MPP, DPA, and NCSL all use the term legalization for the complete removal of penalties; they reserve the word "decriminalize" for situations where a small fine still applies (currently cannabis is considered to be legalized in 11 states and decriminalized in 16 states).
Some of the bill's supporters may sometimes use the word decriminalize though for political reasons, in order to soften the appearance of the bill and make it more likely to pass.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
You could also avoid this whole argument by saying "deschedule" or "remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act" in the lead section, in place of "decriminalize". That is actually the most precise way to describe the bill I believe.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The phrase “the Rule of Law” has to be distinguished from the phrase “a rule of law”. The latter phrase is used to designate some particular legal rule like the rule against perpetuities or the rule that says we have to file our taxes by a certain date.
New Wikipedia Library law database available - Taxmann
Hi - just a quick note that Taxmann is now available for access via The Wikipedia Library. They're making their case laws database available for use in research for Wikipedia articles. Let me know if you have any questions. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jorahm: Hey there! Very nicely done on this article! I fixed some few quick nits just now but I'll try to give it a more thorough read sometime in the next few days! DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'm sure you some of you guys helped me get through law school a few years ago. Took me a few weekends to put something together and give back. I especially appreciate help with the citation as that stuff still drives me crazy. Jorahm (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Categorization of public health advisories/orders/warnings/bulletins/recommendations
Latham & Watkins article needs improvement from knowledgeable editors
The article, Latham & Watkins, has a multiple issues tag indicating that the article is written like an advertisement, a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject, and the article needs additional citations for verification. I believe it is important for us to have articles about major law firms, but such articles should of course be written from a neutral point of view. ¶ I searched the archives and found one relevant discussion regarding a law firm staffer's edits to an article about one of Latham & William's attorneys. ¶ I made some edits today to the Latham & Watkins article (see "Do NOT add attorney's names without citation to a reliable source" on the article's Talk page), but more are certainly needed. If you can help, please do! Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) [he/his/him]14:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I think a wider discussion about the notability of minor U.S. federal statutes and bills might be warranted. If it has taken place already, can you point us in that direction? --David Tornheim (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I also posted this:
We have a large number of national categories of "People with acquired citizenship of Foo" where the only content is "Naturalized citizens of Foo". I know enough about nationality law to think that at least in some countries you can acquire citizenship other than by naturalisation. But it seems silly to keep more than 100 categories which are effectively empty. I'd be interested in opinions as to the wisdom of merging these, and which way round would be the better merger. Rathfelder (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
This has been going on for over 5 weeks, and had only 3 !votes (including the nominator). So I've relisted Belgium a second time, in the hope of setting some precedent for the rest. The question is whether all folks who are naturalised have "acquired" citizenship, or whether all folks who acquire citizenship (say via marriage or parents) are termed "naturalised". Right now there's a completely unexplained distinction, so we don't know whether it is actually a formal legal distinction that needs to remain in our categorization. William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 : please review quality and importance rating
A great deal of work has gone into expanding, cleaning up and citing Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, so may I suggest that its classifications according to this wikiproject merit review. It is clearly no longer start class, though I suspect its importance in international law is still low. Of course I don't expect this WP to pre-empt the GA process (unless of course someone would be kind enough to get two for the price of one and do the GA review: if not, then any suggestions or corrections that can be actioned while it is in the GAN queue would be most welcome). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm researching for an (admittedly non-law-related) article, and I came across an excerpt (Chapter 'VI'). I believe this means the names listed were assigned by the legislative assembly as incorporators of the Minnesota Railroad Company, but I'm terrible at parsing legalese, so I wanted to confirm this with someone who actually knows what they're talking about (i.e., not me). TheTechnician27(Talk page)01:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Royal assent for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe18:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Help with trademark issue
There are trademark issues that might be of interest to members of this project. I work for Supreme (brands), an international clothing brand. There is a significant problem with the description of the legal status of our trademarks. The language makes it seems as though counterfeit goods using the brand are legal. I have created a proposed correction on the Talk page to the article: Talk:Supreme (brand)#Corrections January 11, 2021 Thanks for your consideration.Oa4251 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
FAR for Scottish Parliament
I have nominated Scottish Parliament for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe22:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone created this article and it's a really important case. I tried to expand it. We could use a proofread. I've also seen some articles featured on the main page and I'd like to try and hit that standard eventually. I would appreciate any advice or edits. Jorahm (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this article is about recognition of marriages that occurred abroad, i.e. foreign marriages. If that were the case, then various European countries would be marked as "State recognizes both civil and certain religious marriages" since foreign religious marriages are "recognised"—all things equal, conditions may apply—by most European countries.--JBchrch (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
AmericanRescuePlan2021, Hi! Can you please confirm you don't have a COI with respect to this article? I noticed that the vast majority of your edits pertain to this one article, so I just would appreciate confirmation that you're not subject to any conflict of interest. Thanks! DocFreeman24 (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I kindly ask you to evaluate edits to William T. Reid IV article (Reid is a co-founder of Reid Collins & Tsai) made by Melcous - who removed the whole section of “Notable cases” - answering 3 questions:
Do you feel that "Notable cases" in this article provides value to Wikipedia users and should be kept?
Working on this part I selected only the cases that have big scale or some importance for the law field (InverWorld case is mention in the UN international law publication, Brack v. Omni Loan Co was featured in some books, City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P. is an important case of the taxing practices). Antonio de la Rúa agains Shakira is a bit of an exception here, but I kept it because it involved multiple jurisdictions and I thought it was a curious one.
Editor's point of view
The reasoning provided by the editor who deleted this part is this:
Anyway, the reason I removed it, as stated in the edit summary, is that this kind of information does not appear to me to be encyclopedic. It is verging on both promotional and resume-like. There is already a career section which includes a few of the cases he has worked on in order to establish his notability. This is an encyclopedic biography but it is not a 'who's who' article on a lawyer - listing cases like this seems to suggest someone is wanting this article to serve another purpose, which when combined with paid editing doesn't sit well with me.
The text in question
In 2001-2003, Reid worked on a complicated litigation case against InverWorld, an investment company accused in 1999 of fraud and violation of securities laws by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission[1] that resulted in $475 million dollars of losses to its clients (mostly Mexican citizens).[2] Classified later as a Ponzi scheme,[3][4] the case involved three jurisdictions (the United States, the United Kingdom and the Cayman Islands -- InverWorld’s owner, Jose Zollino, was a Mexican national who moved to San Antonio. There he established InverWorld and related companies for offshore transactions[5])[6] and several parties creating insolvency agreements approved by the courts in each of the three jurisdictions[6] (“The clients were a tandem of a U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee and a Cayman Liquidator. I even had joint hearings with the U.S. Bankruptcy Judge and the Cayman Judge and two sets of lawyers on the phone,” recalled Reid in a 2016 Lawdragon feature[7]). Reid and Diamond McCarthy consequently sued third-parties allegedly involved in the fraud including the law firm of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle[8][9] (resulting in $24 million settlement),[10] Deloitte & Touche auditors,[4][8][11][12][13]Wells Fargo[4] and UBS banks.[10]
Reid was one of the lawyers representing Omni Loan Co in the Brack v. Omni Loan Co., Ltd. (2008) case[14] that clarified choice-of-law practice related to consumer bank loans made outside the state of residence.[15][16]
In 2009, Reid got involved in an almost decade-long legal clash between San Antoniomunicipalities and a group of online hotel operations (mostly owned by Expedia, Inc.) that started in May 2006 when the city filed a putative statewide class action suit City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. SA06CA0381, stating that defendants had failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes in full, as required by municipal ordinance.[17] These claims followed the same demands from the likes of Los Angeles in 2004, Chicago in 2005, and San Diego and Atlanta in 2006.[17] The case proceeded to trial on October 5, 2009.[18] On October 30, 2009, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total of $20.6 million in damages.[19] Reid tried the case with two lawyers from McKool Smith.[19][20][18]
In November 2012, Reid filed a $100 million lawsuit against Shakira on behalf of her former boyfriend and business partner Antonio de la Rúa in the New York Supreme Court, seeking to "recover damages" for breach of contract and of fiduciary duty.[21][22][23][24] The pop star claimed de la Rua had never been more than a boyfriend and an advisor and sought to have the lawsuit dismissed on the grounds that the New York County Supreme Court was not the proper venue.[25] On April 2013, de la Rua sued Shakira again under identical claims in the Los Angeles Superior Court.[25] However, an LA judge dismissed the lawsuit in early in August 2013 on forum non conveniens.[26] Previous attempts to sue Shakira in New York and Geneva also failed.[27][28]
In July 2013, Reid filed a lawsuit on behalf of Highland Capital Management against Credit Suisse for defrauding investors in the Lake Las Vegas development ( Claymore Holdings LLC vs. Credit Suisse. Case no. 13-07858, 12-19-14) in Dallas.[29][30] The case was heard before a jury in December 2014[31][32] and resulted in a $40 million award for the investors.[33][34][35] Internal emails of Credit Suisse executives presented during the trial exposed that they were fully aware of the fraud.[36][37][38][39] Following the trial, Reid sued Credit Suisse again in June 2015, demanding the rescission of Highland’s $250 million investment in a syndicated loan, along with fees and 8 years of pre-judgment interest (adding up to $376 million).[40] In September 2015, this case resulted in a $287.5 million judgment in favor of Highland’s Claymore Holdings.[41][42][43]
^George, James P.; Teller, Anna K. (2005). "Conflict of Laws". S.M.U. Law Review. 58: 691. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ abAmmann, Daniel (2003-08-06). "«Nichts getan, um den Betrug zu stoppen»" ["Nothing done to stop the fraud"]. Die Weltwoche (in German). No. 32. Archived from the original on 2018-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-16. If Reid were a class-action plaintiff looking for the quick buck, things could be easier for UBS. But as a former vice prosecutor and legal advisor to the officially appointed estate administrator, his word has a lot of weight. Last December, for example, he forced the law firm representing Inverworld into a settlement: it pledged to pay $24 million.
^Gutierrez v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 147 F. Supp. 2d 584 (W.D. Tex. 2001-03-19).
^Gutierrez v. the Cayman Islands Firm of Deloitte & Touche, 100 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2002-03-27).
^Blackwell v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP (In re I.G. Services, Ltd.), 279 B.R. 818 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 2002).
^Kaja Whitehouse (2014-12-19). "Highland Capital wins $40M in suit vs. Credit Suisse". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2016-01-16. Retrieved 2018-01-23. William Reid, a lawyer for the Highland entity that sued Credit Suisse, said he will be asking the court for judgment for over $300 million in that case — thanks to the jury's finding on Friday "that Credit Suisse committed fraud."
^Tom Hals (2014-12-19). "Jury faults Credit Suisse in Lake Las Vegas refinancing". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-01-23. Retrieved 2018-01-23. William Reid, Highland's outside counsel with Reid Collins & Tsai law firm, said the fund would seek $300 million in damages against the bank next year, when breach of contract claims go to trial.
Hugo Black, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm looking to try to bring some articles up to a high standard to be marked as a featured article. Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. is in good shape and a really important one for software law. Am I in the right ballpark? Is there a way that I can practice or get early feedback before I waste anyone's time? Jorahm (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jorahm: Thanks for your work on this article! My recommendation would be to nominate this to be a good article. The GA standards are somewhat lower than the featured article standards, and the reviewer will often give you valuable feedback. Another option would be a peer review, which is simply a request for feedback from other editors. But I think this article is probably in good enough shape to nominate it for GA. Feel free to let us know if you have any further questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The page Bad law was created as a disambiguation page, but did not link to anything called bad law (though it did link to a book titled Bad Laws). I have reformatted the page's content as a stub article. If members of this WikiProject think an article could be created, perhaps you could edit the page or comment at Talk:Bad law. If there is no article to be created, perhaps the page should be deleted or redirected somewhere. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Could someone please help me find a document with the outcome of the legal case Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank? The documents linked in the case are not the final decision on the merits of the trademark case, but simply a motion to exclude certain evidence. How would I find the final outcome based on the actual trademark complaint? Thanks. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy: I consulted the database of the Federal Judicial Center; you can view the entry here. (Click on "view" for the relevant entry.) According to the codebook, the entry means that: 1) Disposition was by consent, i.e. the case was settled. 2) Judgment was an injunction for the plaintiff, i.e. a court order was entered forbidding the defendant from further infringement. 3) No monetary damages were awarded or sought. 4) The case terminated on 02/01/2008, about a year after the evidentiary ruling. Since the case was settled, chances are no additional opinions were generated. (This explains why you can't find anything.) Although I haven't looked, it's possible that the settlement might have generated some press coverage. Anyway, thanks for asking! Let us know if we can be of further assistance. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much, that's very helpful. I am continually impressed at how knowledgeable my fellow editors are here at Wikipedia. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. This Pakistani first-class cricketer seems to be a notable legal person. I was wondering whether anybody from this project would be able to write about his legal background? He is a professor of law at Harvard, seems to have advised 4 Pakistani presidents, spoken at and worked for the UN, amongst other things. There is a self-published bio here which might have some pointers. Many thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Bricker Amendment for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC))
Legal expertise/experience in editing legal articles needed!
Hi,
I've attempted to create a 'skeleton' and summarize the main facts of the case in Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, which has been quite a task given how complex the case was (further summarizing and c/e is definitely needed!). Any help from editors with legal expertise/experience editing legal articles would be much appreciated! I've so far used Irving v Penguin Books Ltd as a 'template'. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia
There’s a new user at Legal system of Saudi Arabia that’s made this change x3 both as an IP and under their new account. There is a POV there but I can’t actually figure out what it is - there’s a talk page discusion I’ve been having with them but I’m none the wiser what they’re up to. Their edits are a mixture of being unsourced and against the inline citations, poor English or just don’t make sense, or using as a source a website called sharialaw.org which looks non-RS/SELFPUB. The issue itself revolves (I think) around what will be quite an obscure topic for most people: whether Saudi Arabia uses Hanbali, one of four Islamic (Sunni) legal schools of thought (known as Maddhab), in its law courts or whether it should be described as Wahhabism which is certainly the dominant religious movement in the country. I’ve not seen any sources that say Saudi’s law courts don’t follow Hanbali. It’s a low traffic article and on obscure topic hence I’m trying to get other inputs. That’s a bit of a long shot I know but if anyone one is inclined, please take a look. (I’ll post this at a couple of other Wikiprojects). DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for you notice DeCausa. Not sure what the POV is either but the bottom line is that changes are inconsistent with the sources. I responded to them here. --JBchrch (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Law secondary sources
Hey there. I'm wondering how secondary sources work for law articles on Wikipedia. I took a look at FA's and GA's. I'm seeing some books, some justia.com, some other links that look like academic journals.
What's justia.com's role? When cited, is it providing primary text (law/bill text), or summaries of cases written by their staff?
What are the major journal search engines, and major journal providers? LexisNexis?
Any other major/common/useful resources I'm missing?
Novem Linguae, Hi there! I'm not intimately familiar with how the FAs and GAs use these sources but AFAIK:
1. Justia typically hosts primary sources (e.g., court decisions, statutes, etc.). I'm not familiar with much in the way of secondary commentary on their site, but it may exist and I just don't know about it.
2. Major legal journal search engines that I'm aware of are Lexis and WestLaw. HeinOnline and ProQuest also tend to have legal journal articles as well. I noticed that the Wikipedia library card also has access to Oxford Law, but I've never used that so I can't speak to what's on there.
3. Hmm. Aside from the above, there's also CaseText, FastCase, and Bloomberg. There are a lot of new or alternative legal databases that have been trying to crack into the market lately. But the above are the most common ones that I can think of.
The top American law journals (law reviews) are freely accessible online, and are searchable using Google scholar.--JBchrch (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
"Top" is a bit of a subjective ranking but Harvard Law Review, Stanford Law Review, and Yale Law Journal are probably the 3 most notable ones (though, again, subject to debate). Check out List of law reviews in the United States for a moderately comprehensive list. There's a link in there to a Washington & Lee "ranking" of journals as well if you're interested. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
In addition to the comments made above, (depending on jurisdiction) you'll also likely want to consider textbooks and practitioner texts. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion over at the Manual of Style that may interest you. The discussion regards a potential change in guidance for how to name articles about legal cases. We would appreciate any comments you have. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
California statutory citations
Hello - I wanted to add a bit to Standing and saw that there were no templates for the California Codes. I made three basic types.
the way it is for the US Codes, which requires you to type out and cite the whole name of the code:
The first two options do not work for the California Constitution. For now I've only done the Constitution, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Code, but I may go back and do more soon. Hopefully this is useful for anyone who works on articles on the Law of California. — Amitabho Chattopadhyaytalk22:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Would experts here take a look at the changes that an SPA / IP made to Efficient breach in late April? I have concerns about WP:DUE-ness and POV, but am not conversant enough with the field to wisely evaluate. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a good amount of articles on Indian (the Republic of India) law, but very few articles on case law. What articles exist seem poorly structured? When a separate Project for this was proposed by DebhasisM (talk·contribs), the response was that a shared taskforce between WP:India and WP:Law would be ideal. How do we take the next steps on this? --- Semanticz0 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a rather daunting task, but it is important to have solid and accurate coverage of the case law of one of the largest English-speaking countries in the world. Is there some kind of a template for case law of India? BD2412T04:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
My apologies for being late to reply. As far as I know, there isn't, either as a convention or as a fixed template. I suppose developing one could be a start. Does WikiProjectLaw have anything like this which we could use? I'm new here. I've just spent a few hours the other day merging the SCICase infobox template with the Courtcase template, so I don't think an India-specific template is necessary. Semanticz0 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Requested edits to Draft:Cremades&Calvo-Sotelo
Hello fellow Wikipedians
I work in communication for this law firm, Cremades & Calvo-Sotelo, and I need editors from outside the company to review the
Draft:Cremades&Calvo-Sotelo, so that it can be published. I appreciate all the collaborations and I will also try to help in other articles. --Ursulabela (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Please check this out and express support if interested. Alternatively, I would love for this to be a Workgroup under this WikiProject or WikiProject India. Semanticz0 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
FAR notice
I have nominated Report of 1800 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Nwanguma v. Trump
Nwanguma v. Trump is currently a redirect, but is notable enough for a standalone article, as the main article is bloated and unreadable and needs to be split out. There's only so many hours in a day, so I am requesting help turning this into a new article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I did anything wrong with my GA application. But while I was waiting I worked on this important case. It might need some work. I tried to take care to distinguish the law as it was in 1982 (focused on whether games are audio-visual works, starting to think about the idea-expression distinction) versus how we understand it now (several conflicting rulings on the idea-expression distinction). Thanks in advance for any help. Jorahm (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
63 Top-level articles in Wikiproject Law are start-class or lower
Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Seeking opinions from editors experienced in U.S. law. In 2018, Bill Cosby was convicted of assault. In 2021, the conviction was vacated. Does that mean that he was never convicted in the first place? Or was the conviction valid from 2018-2021? Please weigh in at the link in the title. starship.paint (exalt)14:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
He insists that the allegation of violating the Code (in the circumstances discussed) is necessarily the allegation of a crime, and has deleted text article material accordingly. (He's also, curiously, directly after our difference of viewpoints, followed me to another article, and deleted entries I had made, but that is not an issue for here).
If anyone has a view either way, can they write it here?
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that International law, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team
After doing some research for some UN related articles I've discovered some treaties which do not have Wikipedia articles, if anyone would like to create them please do, I'm going to try and find some reliable sources for them to help get them started.
This article interests me and I think it has potential to become a good article. But I don't think I would be able to do it alone. Is there a good way to find collaborators who want to work on this together? Jorahm (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Execution by elephant for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk05:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
RM Skadden to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
I've made quite a few changes to the Legal technology page (mostly along the lines of "throwing content at the wall"). I sort of feel as if there is still more "basic content" to be added, and then a bit of "flow improvement", but on the assumption that nothing is ever finished, I should probably request a little feedback now. I'm also particularly interested in suggestions about sources, should editors have them. It's worth bearing in mind that the page is still in its infancy. Writethenread (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm particularly interested in sources that talk about the history of legal tech. I found one good source about AI in law, but this has quite an academic AI angle, and it might be nice to get something more "legal". But such discussions are likely best carried on the talk page Writethenread (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone. If anyone's interested, I've started a draft article on Felstiner, Abel and Sarat's seminal socio-legal article "Naming, Blaming, Claiming" on the transformation of injuries to grievances to (legal) disputes. Any contributions from others are welcomed. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 14:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
FAR for constitution of Belarus
I have nominated Constitution of Belarus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe23:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
GAR
Steven Donziger has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓01:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the text is okay. It would be preferable to say in the lead who precisely views it as voter suppression but otherwise seems relatively balanced. Urve (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Al-Kateb v Godwin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe22:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how active this WikiProject is but I have a request. We have a new editor who has PROD'd a lot of articles on legal cases, mostly on South African law. If anyone has time over the next week, if you could de-PROD any of them that are important enough to keep, you'd be doing Wikipedia a great service. And if there any editors you know who specialize in reviewing legal articles and you could alert them, that would be awesome. You can find them in Category:Proposed deletion as of 28 November 2021. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!21:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I looked at perhaps 5-6 of these articles and didn't see much basis to contest the PRODs based on a quick search. That's not to say that there aren't sources out there to support these articles but, given the age and relative niche subject matter of some of these, it isn't immediately obvious that these are sufficiently notable to warrant an article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Dietrich v The Queen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
FAR notice
I have nominated Hours of service for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Draft talk:United States v. Flynn
