Wikipedia talk:Legal disclaimer/Archive 1

First posts
(added header to first posts)--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this all wrong. Bit of a computer illiterate. But I need some help with these Qs: I am doing research for a book and would like to use old ads from the newspapers and magazines at the Malaysia National Archives. They have informed me copyright is not a problem. I may use what like. Anything from the National Archives is public domain and may be used for publishing as long as I give due credit to the National Archives. However, I'm still a bit nervous. 1) For example there is a 1960s Pepsi ad I'd like to use - a company and product which still runs today. How does this work? 2) How about old ads of products no longer available but were printed in newspapers which are alive till today. 3) Also, some magazines are catalogued under personal collections archive which are made available to the public. But do these come under a different ownership law? Can I go straight to the National Archives for permission or must I ask the corporations and individuals regarding the personal collection bit?

No legal advice - understood. But could you shed some light on how this works in America or Britain (better yet - Malaysia) Thanks a bunch


 * Go to the reference desk. And don't display your email. Jake the Editor Man  ( talk  ) 17:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we maybe create a standard disclaimer for articles, over at Boilerplate text? -- Tarquin 09:54 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)


 * I would suggest we put a link from every page, say by putting it in the script, that would point to legal notices -- assertions of copyright, links to the FDL, disclaimers of liability, including the above.... then we don't have to clutter up every single page on the law or other such topics (the same sort of advice should really apply to other issues as well -- don't let Wikipedia substitute for your doctor, or for your financial advisor, or anyone else -- we give no warranty that our articles are not filled with highly dangerous misinformation that will get you killed (of course, I'd like to think our articles can mostly be trusted, but I don't think we want to be held legally responsible in case they aren't)... I'm mainly thinking here of protecting both the people who run the servers and also contributors from lawsuits... although thats probably quite unlikely, its better to be safe than sorry -- Anonymoues 10:05 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

I have made a few changes as I have written more than a few disclaimers in my legal practice, not that I am giving any legal advice though ;-) Alex756 09:37 May 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think a link on every page would be excessive, but I certainly support linking here freely, just as we do for spoiler warning... Martin


 * I agree putting it on every page is a bit overdone. Not everything on Wikipedia could be considered legal advice. However, perhaps a general disclaimer? &mdash; Alex756 PS: I did draft a risk disclaimer, check it out. Alex756

On a seperate note, I suggest using "This article is not legal advice" rather than "Wikipedia does not give...". The former is more friendly to sublicensees, who can then use our articles by just removing links to the wikipedia: domain, rather than having to manually rewrite it. What do you think?

Removed from meta page:  This page should be linked when discussing examples of legal principles, not necessarily for very general legal discussions. Use the following markup to link to this page:


 * Please note: Wikipedia does not give legal advice.

or



It is suggested to put the disclaimer at the top of the text with a line underneath (four dashes). That way it will be visible when the person links to the page, in a prominent position. 

I'm about to add a link to General disclaimer to the bottom of every page. Thus it will no longer be necessary to pollute artilces with Wikipedia-specific references like the above. --mav 04:54, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi all. The Spanish wikilink is not correct. Should be: es:Wikipedia:Aviso legal (not translated yet, but it exists, not as es:Wikipedia:Disclaimers). Salut, -- 1984 16:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is the page edit locker??? "Not...nor" should be corrected to "Neither nor" in the penultimate para. --BozMo|talk 14:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please add the Aviso Legal interwiki to the page. --Ikescs 04:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please add the following interwiki links, in addition to the Portuguese one above:

da:Wikipedia:Juridiske forbehold es:Wikipedia:Aviso legal fr:Wikipédia:Wikipédia ne donne pas de conseil juridique hu:Wikipédia:Jogi tanács sv:Wikipedia:Juridiska förbehåll vi:Wikipedia:Ph%E1%BB%A7 nh%E1%BA%ADn v%E1%BB%81 lu%E1%BA%ADt ph%C3%A1p zh-cn:Wikipedia:& zh-tw:Wikipedia:&

Thanks. – Minh Nguy&#7877;n (talk, contribs, blog) 05:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. jni 08:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Please add this one too: tr:Vikipedi:Hukuki sorumluluk reddi Zfr 15:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add category...
Please add to Category:Wikipedia disclaimers. Thanks! -- Beland 01:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good Idea, from a lawyer
I'm a lawyer in MN, I have no desire to offer legal advise to anyone in or out of MN (I'm in-house, so I don't take clients, period). However I do like sharing info about certain aspects of the law --particularly the often misunderstood realm of copyright law and video games. However, I like to keep a disclaimer since, although I'm proud to be JD/Esq., I want to be clear that it's not to form a legal relationship --the latter is an important concern and consideration for all practising attorneys and law students, particularly in the United States. I'm placing this smack-dab in my User Page. Bobak 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I think it's all a bit over the top. Wikipedia contains general articles on basic subjects, expressed with reference (when the article is done well) to general concepts applied over multiple jurisdictions, and is updated on a completed ad hoc basis. The idea to me that someone would try to sue Wikipedia, or still less, one of the contributors, on the basis that (a) Wikipedia/the contributor(s) owed a duty of care to the general public, and (b) that the duty was to provide comprehensive and competent legal advice in all possible jurisdictions, and (c) the member of the general public was not a complete pillock by seeking and then relying upon open source content in an edit-it-yourself online encyclopaedia, seems faintly ridiculous to me.  Just my [non-professional] opinion. Legis 15:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not ridiculous. Regardless of whether someone is ill-advised in using WP for professional advice, it's just a good idea to make it absolutely clear that remarks on WP are not intended as advice nor offered to initiate an (attorney-client/physician-patient/etc.) relationship, or otherwise to be misconstrued as an element of one's professional practice. Since WP is an international resource that covers many jurisdictions, it just makes good sense to be absolutely clear, the whole "getting sued" matter is beside the point. dr.ef.tymac 16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing Wikilink
Please add the following interwikilink pl:Wikipedia:Zastrzeżenia dotyczące pojęć prawniczych to a legal disclaimer from the polish wikipedia. Mieciu K 17:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar suggestion
"PLEASE READ THE BELOW STATEMENT" may be correct in some dialects of English, but reads very awkwardly in others. I would suggest "PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT". Kickaha Ota 16:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 22:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Please add intewiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is sr:Википедија:Правно одрицање Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 09:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit Request "articles -> articles and resources" (applies to all disclaimers, not just legal disclaimer)
This request is specifically motivated by the "reference desk," although I am sure there are other categories of WP content that do not constitute formal "articles" and are nonetheless subject to the standard disclaimer(s). Perhaps an appropriate change would be to replace the first instance of "articles" with "articles and resources" and then change all subsequent references to "resources." In any event, it seems appropriate to make a minor rewording to indicate that WP consists of more than just "articles," and that the appropriate disclaimers apply throughout all WP content. dr.ef.tymac 16:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: If this edit is objectionable, perhaps consider a definition somewhere stating that "articles includes images, documents, discussion threads and all related materials ... blah blah blah" you get the idea. dr.ef.tymac 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good idea to me, but I'm not sure about the ramifications of editing the disclaimer. Perhaps this should be brought up at WP:AN? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm likewise inclined to think it's a good idea, but I have no idea regarding policy/implications of editing the disclaimers. History shows it doesn't get changed much. I'm starting a thread about this on wikien-l, if you'd like to participate. Luna Santin 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not done for now (so request tag removed). Proto ::  ►  15:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:AN doesn't seem to be the right place for this either, this isn't a matter for consensus, it is a foundation page, and legal should review it, IMHO. — xaosflux  Talk  03:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Posted to foundation-l, hopefully that'll garner some useful replies. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask our legal counsel to have a look at this. Thanks for telling us. Anthere

I have no objection to the edit proposed, for all disclaimers. Differentiating between "articles" and "articles and resources" seems a very esoteric semantic distinction. It is all user-generated content/information/material contained in pages we call articles. Cognitively, we understand we mean stuff we see on a computer screen as a "page". I will leave it to dictionary buffs to distinguish a "resource".--Brad Patrick 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for responding. The distinction may indeed be an unnecessary refinement, nevertheless, as I mentioned previously, some may reasonably misconstrue "articles" as being somehow distinct from "reference desk answers" (which are customarily directed to specfic questions by individuals).
 * Admittedly, I was wearing my "man on the street" cap when making that assessment. Were I to put on my "barrister" cap (which is what the disclaimers are all about) I'd have to concede that the disclaimer page already states plainly:

Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. ... (etc.)


 * Consequently, the distinction between articles and other types of resources is (on that basis alone) non-essential. Consider this issue dropped. dr.ef.tymac 03:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki (ru)
Please, add the following interwiki link ru:Википедия:Википедия не делает юридических заключений Thanks! -- Ilya Voyager 19:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

✅ Done. I also removed a bunch of apparently malformed interwikis: Juridiske forbehold, Aviso legal, Penyangkalan hukum, Juridiska förbehåll, Ph%E1%BB%A7 nh%E1%BA%ADn v%E1%BB%81 lu%E1%BA%ADt ph%C3%A1p,  &. How were these supposed to work? Sandstein 13:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the language prefixes seem to have been lost somehow. I definitely don't remember doing that; maybe it's some sort of bug. Fixed now. Sandstein 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

list of interwikis
editprotected List of interwikis for enwiki legal disclaimer: da:Wikipedia:Juridiske forbehold de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Rechtsthemen es:Wikipedia:Aviso legal fr:Wikipédia:Wikipédia ne donne pas de conseil juridique hr:Wikipedija:Wikipedija ne daje pravne savjete hu:Wikipédia:Jogi tanács id:Wikipedia:Penyangkalan hukum pl:Wikipedia:Zastrzeżenia dotyczące pojęć prawniczych pt:Wikipedia:Aviso legal sv:Wikipedia:Juridiska förbehåll sr:Википедија:Правно одрицање tr:Vikipedi:Hukuki sorumluluk reddi ru:Википедия:Википедия не делает юридических заключений vi:Wikipedia:Phủ nhận về luật pháp zh:Wikipedia:法律声明

OldEnt § 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added all the new ones, but removed the French article from the list as it has been deleted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Barrister"
The page suggests barristers (amongst other legal professionals, eg. solicitors) be contacted for legal advice instead of wp. I think that this ought to be removed - hardly central to the underlying message of the page, but in jurisdictions where barristers operate, they generally aren't the first port of call for members of the public seeking legal advice. That is for solicitorsIn other words, a barrister isn't a likely source of legal advice for someone looking for counsel on wp.martianlostinspace email me 21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request for right now. There should be consensus for a change like this, or at least another opinion. "Barrister" has been included since Sept. 2003, and isn't really incorrect to include (in my opinion). Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki / French page
Hello! Here's a link to the french page : fr:Wikipédia:Mise en garde juridique

--Sorw (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake
Flame me if I am not posting this correctly.

... The legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a licensed professional, i.e., by a competent authority with specialised knowledge who can apply ...

"specialised" should be spelled "specialized" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmore46 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 July 2008

Check out the opinion above, I believe that the mistake should be corrected. Brainmachine (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Actually, it's properly spelled. See specialise.  Specialise is an alternate spelling of Specialize, used in the UK. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Please add  mk:Википедија:Правно одрекување  to the interwiki list, tnx in advance :) Brainmachine (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Skier Dude ( talk ) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please add additional shortcut
editprotected Please add WP:NOLEGAL. – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Amalthea  19:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's the most memorable redirect to this page so it made sense to add it. :) Cheers, Amalthea  21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki Request
Please add hi:विकिपीडिया:वैधानिक अस्वीकरण for Hindi wiki. Thanks :) --Priyanka (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WPANAL
Perhaps the sentence "Wikipedia is not a lawyer." should be added to mirror the "Wiki is not a doctor" warning on WP:Medical disclaimer? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki request
editprotected Please add gl interwiki: gl:Wikipedia:Aviso legal. Thanks!

Interwiki/Bulgarian page
Please add intewiki link for the Bulgarian Wikipedia. The link is bg:Уикипедия:Юридическо опровержение. Thank you! --Nauka (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki it request
it:Wikipedia:Disclaimer legale is missing; please add. Thanks. --Achillu (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Add redirect WP:LD to the shortcuts box. 60.248.176.205 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Please bold the fragment "cannot substitute for the advice of a", so that the whole meaning is bolded instead of just the words "licensed professional". Just bolding the last two words doesn't seem logical. This is also   S ven M anguard  19:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, but I'll wait for any other opinions before amending. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any issue with this. Would help to clarify the statement. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Looks like enough agreement to me. Anomie⚔ 01:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal or Medical advice
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines that may be of interest.

It concerns requests for legal or medical advice posted to one of the reference desks.

I am posting this here because of a potential conflict between the talk page guidelines and reference desk guidelines --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)