Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 13

International criminal law task force proposal
Hi there, I would like to propose the creation of an international criminal law task force to focus on articles and lists related to international tribunals and courts, with an initial focus on the International Criminal Court. User Pi (also a member of the project) has already created a basic outline of articles that need to be created in his userspace. I have spoken with him and another editor about possible pages to be created, expanded, standardized, and nominated as good and featured content. – Zntrip 06:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Article needs help
Hello! I created an article about John Baricevic, starting from his work as a college football coach. Turns out now he's a judge in Illinois! If anyone has any input on the article, feel free to pitch in!--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about template for citing US court cases
There is a discussion going on at Template talk:Cite court over the preferred look of cites generated via the Cite court template (designed for use when citing sources). Some people are suggesting that US court case citations should conform to other types of references (such as for books, journal articles, etc.), while others insist that the accepted Bluebook norm needs to be followed at any cost (even if this means that the core "citation" template code used for every other kind of reference can't be used for legal cites). This question came up because United States v. Wong Kim Ark is currently being considered as a Featured Article candidate and is therefore getting additional scrutiny regarding the look and feel of its references. Hopefully some more people can go over there and get involved. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 23:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Content and sourcing of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (Featured Article candidate)
Some questions have arisen regarding the content and sourcing of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which is currently being considered as a Featured Article candidate. Any interested editors may wish to go to Featured article candidates/United States v. Wong Kim Ark/archive1 and participate in the discussion (go down to the end of the page) as you feel is appropriate. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 07:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of some legal categories
See :Category:Copyright laws of the European Union for link to proposals on renaming some legal categories. Hugo999 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Law 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. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Value (law)
Some expert attention on this short article would be terrific, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Organizing US laws in wiki format
IANAL, apologies if this question is silly:

As far as I know, laws (US laws at least) undergo conceptual changes after they're issued: memoranda, addendums, updates, precedents etc. This makes it painful to comprehend the current state of a particular law.

I know that Congress is not exactly a paragon of technological progress, but is there an effort to organize the entire law corpus into ONE place, and have it updated as laws change? A wiki for laws, reflecting the current state of laws, with all pertinent updates incorporated in each page. Ideally, if lawmakers embrace the initiative, lawmaking (or rather, law changing) would be a matter of debating diffs to the current page, voting on one, then committing the change.

-- Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you mean like the US Code? It's available several places online, and recently the agency in charge of the official version unveiled a new website - http://uscode.house.gov/beta.shtml
 * Hartboy (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The site that Hartboy mentions contains the current text of the United States Code, which is supposed to contain all public laws of a permanent nature enacted at the federal level. However, that site contains only the statutes themselves and brief citations of their drafting history; it does not contain committee reports, floor debates, other legislature commentary, presidential signing statements, nor court or administrative decisions construing and implementing the statutes. I don't know of any one place that includes everything. For modern enactments, the U.S. Code, Congressional and Administrative News contains committee reports and signing statements; the Congressional Record includes floor debates; and the United States Code Annotated or United States Code Service are probably the best (though not 100% complete) place for citations to court decisions. As for "wiki format", Wikisource contains some U.S. legislation, but not in the comprehensive form you suggest, and the amount of work necessary to organize the whole corpus of federal law in the form you suggest would be a big obstacle to its getting done, especially in the near term. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now. Yeah, I'm also not aware of any web site that does this. Either one of these would be a major undertaking -- a compiled legislative history for even a single bill is a lot of work; an annotated code with subsequent cases is a lot of work too -- the United States Code Annotated (from West), for example, is 370 volumes in print and retails close to $10,000. Could be the type of project that lends itself well to crowdsourcing though. Hartboy (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is being crowdsourced. See wikisource:United States Statutes at Large (USSaL) and the wikisource:United States Code (USC) for instance. The USSaL contains all laws of the United States ever passed from its beginning. The USC is the latest law compiled into subject areas. The California Statutes will hopefully get uploaded and started soon. Good luck if your outside the US, although it appears the UK (but not the devolved areas) has most of its slip laws online AFAIK. Int21h (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * US federal law emanates from one entity: Acts (laws, slip laws) of Congress, the legislative branch. This is what is quibbled over in the courts. Sometimes the Congress passes a law saying something like "Anyone who does something bad shall go to prison for some period of time." Then a member of the executive branch, ie. a prosecutor, might say "you have broken this department of motor vehicles regulation (administrative law) and should go to prison for life", and this is where the judicial branch and common law comes in and says "That is the most ridiculous law I've ever seen; case is dismissed." So in effect their are three branches, which the corresponding three branches of law.


 * The most important, the legislative branch, has their aforementioned slip laws compiled into session laws, with all law compiled into the United States Statutes at Large (USSaL). Most of the volumes of the USSaL is available on Wikisource as photographic scans going back to 1789 and is currently be transcribed into text and verified. There is a process called codification, which is done both explicitly by Congress and implicitly by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel resulting in the United States Code (USC), something organized by subject area. The USC does not contain all public law, contrary to belief. Just the codified versions. For instance, the law to extradite a US citizen to the Hague without a trial or Article III court review is not all in the USC I don't think.


 * The Federal Register is the executive branch version of slip laws, ie. where all the executive acts are published. I say all but there are probably other places for executive orders and such. The Code of Federal Regulations is the codified version.


 * Both the executive regulations and the legislative laws have case laws that interpret both them and the common law, eg. judge-made law. There is no official compendium of the common law. The government apparently expects all citizens to make a daily pilgrimage to Washington D.C. and hope to get a copy, otherwise you possibly go to prison for something that's not illegal, or pay tens of thousands of dollars for a copy of the Federal Reporter, equivalent to asking some guy on the street. Relying on some guy on the street for the law has been so common that it is the norm, ie. the Federal Reporter is the norm for finding out the common law. There are also other Federal tribunals in the United States with their own case law.


 * Europe is much of the same. The legislative and its unelected subset called the executive pass slip laws which are usually explicitly codified and compiled into a Gazette. I am unsure if and when the codified laws are then published separately, or like California people are just expected to derive it themselves. I suspect the King or whoever he chooses (the Prime Minister) cares about publishing the current codified law, or at least less than the United States House of Representatives does, and hence there is no United States Code equivalent. Case law has traditional been worthless, because even though the appeals court last time said the government could not send you to prison for saying "nigger", that does not mean it will say the same to you; ie. no binding precedent (outside the UK.) (Remember appeals courts are composed from a large pool so the court is often different.)


 * This is not counting state law, which is often even worse. California, for instance, does not publish its Penal Code and other current codified laws AFAIK, people are expected to somehow just know it or derive it from the published California Statutes, which are largely unavailable to the public. (I am trying to change that.) While the California Supreme Court does publish its decisions in a reporter, the lower appeals court does not and is thus left to word of mouth from people on the street AFAIK.


 * That is how I, and most Americans, understand the system. Wikipedians such as myself are in the process of figuring out how the government has gotten away with such an unjust system, although I already sort of know why: vestiges of European heritage. In any event, just documenting these few parts is a massive challenge. Keeping it up to date, given the word of mouth nature of parts of it, is a far off prospect. Int21h (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion/creation request
I was hoping someone in this project may be able to expand Libel tourism, in particular Libel_tourism - many scholarly legal sources cite Berezovsky v Michaels as the leading example in libel tourism, and that due to the 2000 House of Lords ruling, and resultant case, the UK has become a haven for libel tourists. (according to sources I've thus far seen). Also, if anyone would be interested in writing an article on the actual case, that would be great. Whilst I know I would be capable of doing a full article and expansion, I think it may be best left initially for someone with a direct interest in law to take a stab at it. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Changing the WP Law template to include a link to Portal:Law of England and Wales
At present, WikiProject Law links only to Portal:Law. However, Portal:Law of England and Wales is within the scope of this project, and as there is no WikiProject just for English law, it doesn't appear at present on any talk page banners. Call me biased as I'm the primary editor of that portal, but it is a featured portal and might be worth highlighting to people. It is possible to change the current WP Law template to add a parameter "EW=yes" that would add a link to that portal to turn into this:

Other WikiProjects, such as WP:TRAINS, have templates with this functionality. What do people think? The coding for the above is at template:WikiProject Law/sandbox which calls template:WikiProject Law/sandbox/portalbox. BencherliteTalk 18:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good idea, particularly as opt-in. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 15:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, good idea Mugginsx (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Corrections nominated for deletion
Given that the competing penology is marked by this WikiProject (but talk:corrections isn't), I though I'd let the "enemies" know. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the two articles are in competition or that they are enemies - rather, corrections is an example of a US term and penology of a globally generic term- regardless, I have added my 2$ to the deletion discussion

Talk:Magistrates of England and Wales/GA1
This article is on hold at GAN, It appears that the nominator, User:InExcelsisDeo, has not edited for two months. If anyone from this project wishes to respond to the review, please feel free. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Good Article reviewers for family student articles
Some of them have substantial legal aspects to them. I'd appreciate any help with reviewing articles by my students around late November. See details here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Judicial system of" or "Judiciary of" article names
Should article names be "Judiciary of" or "Judicial system of"? There seems to be a 50/50 split, and I am leaning towards "Judicial system of" to be more inclusive. I propose all of them be renamed, including any "Courts of" articles that cover the same material where there exists no "judiciary" article. What say you? Int21h (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Judicial system seems like it would be more inclusive of federal systems, as well as the inclusion of procedures like criminal procedure etc. Int21h (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Judicial system of ... - Readers will be able to understand it better. "Judiciary" is a fine word, and accurate, but "Judicial system" is also accurate, and much more comprehensible to the layman.  WP:Title places emphasis on common wordings for article titles.  As for renaming all the articles:   I think that is a good idea.  Uniformity has many benefits, especially in searching functionality. --Noleander (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Judicial system of" Have hardly even seen it the other term. Mugginsx (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Judiciary of. I don't think "judiciary" is particularly more opaque than "judicial system", and it is more concise. I have no problem with "Courts of" listings if all they do is indicate the levels and types of courts, without getting into issues of the role of those courts in a larger system of government. bd2412  T 15:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, "Judiciary of" is a term I have personally rarely seen used and I've looked at alot of legal documents and articles. The term Judicial is used in numerous terms - here are just a few examples: Judicial proceedings, Judicial laws, Judicial procedures, Judicial district, Judicial branch, Judicial review, Judicial watch,  Judicial style (when describing a judge or a particular court), etc.  Mugginsx (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no strong objection to "Judicial system of". bd2412  T 18:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that certain aspects of the organization of the courts cannot be adequately described without descriptions of other components of the entire judicial system, such as court officers, aspects of the legal system such as criminal versus non-criminal, procedure, etc. In other words, it is so intricately connected with the system such that a description of the organization without a description of the system is so confusing as to make it unreadable. Int21h (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * System of - Judiciary is limiting in a way the system is not. Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And Things related to is even less limiting. Int21h (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

AfD
I nominated an article for deletion which may be of interest to the project Articles for deletion/List of legislation named for a person. C T J F 8 3 12:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Trustee
I have recently been engaged in a discussion with an editor who doubts that the general legal meaning of the term Trustee is the primary meaning. It seems to me that all other significant senses are derived from the legal meaning, and I have added one source to the article indicating this, but it would be of great help if this important topic was substantially improved and sourced. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments requested
There is a Request for comment at Talk:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. Please do; constructive suggestions particularly welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in law
At the time Articles for deletion/List of publications in law was nominated, I believe this wikiproject was not notified. It currently is here, as User:RHaworth deleted it when I created it.Curb Chain (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for details
I'm working on an article about the works of Jeff Koons: Banality (sculpture series). It appears that several legal cases were brought against him, one of which is covered at Rogers v. Koons. I just found the following:


 * "MGM-Pathe is suing over Koons' use of the Pink Panther figure; United Feature Syndicate is claiming infringement on Koons' appropriation of Odie, a cartoon dog. And another commercial photographer, Barbara Campbell, has sued over Koons' use of her picture for his statue "Ushering in Banality.""

I have very little understanding about law cases and how to research them. Can anyone help me by finding any details about these other supposed cases? Pointers would be much appreciated. violet/riga [talk] 19:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll want to explore transformative use of visual imagery and the concept of "postmodern copyright".Sctechlaw (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Review Joint custody (United States) for accuracy and scope before GA review
I have volunteered to do a GA review of Joint custody (United States). The article has been worked on by students doing a class assignment. I have been following the edits, and it seems to have improved dramatically, but I am just not knowledgeable enough about law to make a good judgement about things like scope and accuracy. Specifically, I would like someone to give a quick read-through to see if it is covering the topic broadly enough and with enough factual accuracy (points 2 and 3 of the Good Article criteria. Please leave comments about these points on the article's talk page. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Psilocybin
Hello, I'm planning on taking the above article to FAC soon, and was hoping that someone knowledgeable in legalese could read the section "Social and legal aspects" to make sure the terminology is correct (e.g. are the various uses of "bill", "amendment", "law", "statute", etc. appropriate?), and that there are no gaping holes in the analysis. Thanks in advance for any advice or comments you might have. Sasata (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop Online Piracy Act
The article could use a look by legally-trained eyes.

Most urgently, the bill language says it does not change the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, but some groups disagree. These opinions are being dismissed as advocacy because they come from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology. I am not sure about the latter group, since I had not heard of it before working on this article, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation has a good reputation as far as I know for solid legal work in the area of free speech, and the CDT does not seem all that wild-eyed either.

There is also a controversy brewing over liability for "knowingly" misrepresenting a website as infringing on a copyright. The bill provides for this, but reporting the web page involves making a declaration of good faith belief that the copyright infringes --- so "knowingly" seems to go out the window unless the website holder can prove otherwise.

All thoughts and views appreciated. If the above description is in fact wrong, I'd love to cross it off my list of things to worry about. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Input requested regarding trade names and trademarks
Editors (especially any with expertise in intellectual property law, or corporate law) may wish to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. The issue of extending the coverage of the page to trade names as well as trademarks may not be as simple or automatic as some assume.

N oetica Tea? 22:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The "FOP" (i.e. Freedom of panorama) category
is up for discussion. Please look here. I put it up for discussion, and yes, I rush to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about. The discussion would benefit from input from those that do know what they're talking about. -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Freedom to photograph
The reason I stumbled on the category above is that I was looking for information about the freedom (or not) to photograph in a public place. Hazily (mis?) remembered readings suggested that some nations still had the principle of such a freedom in public places (with exceptions: a crass but convenient example being "upskirt" photography). I'd thought that this was called "freedom of panorama". However, the article freedom of panorama is far more limited in scope, merely talking about the right (where there is one) to photograph buildings, sculptures, and works of art. The relevant article seems instead to be Photography and the law. This in turn is a bizarre article, dealing in depth with the US and Britain, briefly mentioning Sudan, India and Ireland, and saying nothing whatever about Canada, Mexico and points south, anywhere from France to Pakistan, the far east, most of Africa, etc etc. If anyone here is qualified to extend the coverage of this article, I for one would be grateful. -- Hoary (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Law - Administrative Law
Would people have an interest in a new heading in this project for Administrative Law? This would focus on the broad topics that law school courses in administrative law cover, including rulemaking and adjudication, and not specific fields of regulation. If you think this would be worthwhile, please reply to me at Jonathan.Rusch@gmail.com. Jon Rusch Last Retiring Chair Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Section American Bar Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.120 (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

US: Is a "plea bargain" technically a conviction?
This is not clear from this or a number of other related articles. Only Nolo contendere made some reference to it. And I got conflicting info or opinions from various WP:RS.

If NOT I think we need to do something about all those Category:People convicted of.... Or else specify on the categories that plea bargains are technically convictions, if WP:RS say they are. Will keep looking for definitive WP:RS, but just in case someone here has all that info at their fingertips and wants to clean anything up that needs it :-) CarolMooreDC 04:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The plea bargain is presented to the judge. If the judge accepts it it is a conviction. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What are the most reliable sources on this? I found a bunch in books.google that at least from summaries looked conflicting. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 19:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have fully understood what a "plea bargain" is, the process is entirely separate and does not affect the status of a "conviction" at all. Have you read our article on plea bargain? - it explains that a plea bargain is a situation where an individual accused of a crime "agrees to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with a recommendation of a lighter than the maximum sentence." The "plea bargain" is just a name that describes this process. An individual who pleads guilty to an offence as a result of a plea bargain will be convicted of that offence, it is just that they may by doing so avoid being charged with a more serious offence or secure a less severe punishment for their conviction. A fictional example using fictional laws - Individual A is suspected of holding an individual up at gunpoint and stealing their handbag. He enters into a plea bargain whereby he pleads guilty to the offence of robbery in return for charges of armed robbery being dropped. He is convicted for robbery and avoids the trial and potentially more serious conviction for armed robbery. Ajbp (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is the articles lack of clarity. The first two mentions of "conviction" it sounds to the untrained reader (or one with false assumptions) that this is an "alternative" to conviction. The first of two unsourced statements is "A plea bargain allows criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on the original more serious charge." Only this third use - "the prosecutor may wish to maintain a high conviction rate " - infers that it is in fact a conviction. But that source is not easily readable by those without access to Jstore. For now I put a citation needed tag on the lead "definition" such as it is. CarolMooreDC 14:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Carol, the information given in both of our articles is correct, but I agree that the sourcing could be improved (such simple articles often do not get much attention). I have added references to the terms in Blacks - the standard law dictionary and attempted to further clarify the wording of the plea bargain article. I hope this clarifies for you the distinction between a conviction and a plea bargain - which I emphasise again are logically separate concepts - be careful that you are not confusing a Plea with a Verdict. Ajbp (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So Black's Law Dictionary doesn't provide info that would support a simple sentence like "In law, a plea bargain is considered a conviction."?? Books google search of "black's law dictionary conviction plea bargain" didn't provide much guidance. If not I'll have to dig around through various books google searches til get a credible definition that spells it out clearly for all three article.
 * I ask this because I was talking to someone who was mad that a BLP's plea bargain was characterized as a conviction when Wikipedia "Conviction" says "In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime. [1]" In Conviction, Plea bargain isn't mentioned.
 * That's why I'm saying the issue has to be clarified at least among these two articles. Even as 10 year legal secretary who has worked on number of legal articles, I don't have all the details in my head, so I know it's important to straighten out issues for others. CarolMooreDC 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think we can find any source saying that "In law, a plea bargain is considered a conviction." because as Ajbp said, the two concepts are different and occurs in different stages of a criminal case. How is this for a source: "The vast majority of criminal convictions today are produced through bargained pleas." from and "Prosecutors also accept plea bargains because they are evaluated in large part according to their conviction rates and all plea bargains result in a conviction because the defendant must plead guilty as part of the plea agreement." from   ќמшמφטтгמ torque 02:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as it's clear that's what done in practice, people are getting the facts, and that's what's needed :-) If a clearer statement is found at some point, great. Busy next couple days but if no one changes relevant articles, it's on my list... CarolMooreDC 14:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone found a relevant link so the articles can be cleaned up. here. CarolMooreDC 04:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

new member- help please?
hello, im a new wikipedian, and decided to join this project. on the name list, i think i did something wrong, would someone please check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Lundberg v. County of Humboldt
Hello. As I've explained over at User_talk:Rkmlai, we really need an article on Lundberg v. County of Humboldt as many of the sources on Occupy UC Davis keep referring to it. Can anyone help? Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is what I got: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lundberg_v._County_of_Humboldt&oldid=464911598 . Please feel free to add and edit to the article, as I am not a lawyer. rkmlai (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

HELP! Someone who understands case citations, please look!
I have a sneaking suspicion the year in the case citation R v Collins is wrong and it ought to be 1972. If I am correct the error has been there for three years (and consequently propagated all over the web which makes googling it pointless) - this makes me reluctant to modify it without knowing what I'm doing (and I don't ). Please could someone look? Egg Centric 19:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are, not to put to fine a point on it, wrong. Although the decision was handed down in 1972 - [1973] QB 100 is the "correct" citation for this article. The QB citation is the "official" report of the case produced by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting. Because they are intended as the "official" report of the case they are carefully reviewed for accuracy before publication and typically includes additional details (like a summary of the arguments made by counsel in the case) in addition to the full text of the judgment. Because of these additional features they are not published until significantly after the time of judgment and it would not be unusual not to have the same year of publication as the judgment. As they are the "official" reports thy are cited in preference to other sources once they become available.  Ajbp (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's reassuring to know - given the situation, this is a case where I'd much rather be wrong than right! I understand the principle now you lay it out for me, but I hope you won't be offended if I forget it going forward, only so much space Egg Centric 21:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of "Derivative litigation"
Hi there. Would anyone who is "in the know" (which rules me out!) fancy adding some info. re "Derivative litigation"?

It's a phrase used in this many articles.

Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have an article, Derivative suit, that covers the topic. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah - fair enough and thanks. If you're sure they're one & the same, then, would it be in order for me to add Derivative litigation as an aka into Derivative suit, & create Derivative litigation as a redirect to Derivative suit? Trafford09 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm - I've just re-read the wp:lead of Derivative suit.


 * It states that "A shareholder derivative suit is a lawsuit brought by a shareholder on behalf of a corporation against a third party.".


 * If we compare that with instances of Derivative litigation in this list, then they seem to me to be different animals, as many in the list seem to relate to Joe Smith versus the US Gov..


 * So, I think I'll hang fire for a bit. Thx anyway. Trafford09 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking for help
On the Wikipedia page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia it takes a while exhausting debate on the writing and writing at all of minority languages in articles about settlements in Croatia. Please if you have time, look at the page and try to help us in forming some kind of agreement. We will highly appreciate your effort.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Citizens Rule Book
In need of an expert to add some context, refutation, or validity to the explanation of the claims made in the Citizens Rule Book. The article, as it is, simply reports that the book claims X, Y, and Z, without any indication of what the current state of jurisprudence is vis-a-vis these claims. Is somebody feeling helpful?siafu (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark FAC
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is currently being considered for possible promotion to Featured Article status. Interested editors may wish to visit the article's Featured Article candidacy page and offer supporting, opposing, or neutral comments as they see fit. — Rich wales (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Judicial tyranny (2nd nomination)
Some additional views would probably be helpful in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Judicial tyranny (2nd nomination). Cheers! bd2412 T 01:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Federalist 10
nominated Federalist No. 10 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. Brad (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary and secondary source paradoxes in law related articles
The concept of primary and secondary sources is not logically consistent. Please discuss at Primary and secondary source paradoxes in law related articles. PPdd (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Help Shepard search or nexus plexus re Marsden Motion
Does anyone have access to do a Shepard search or nexus plexus on the subsequent case history of Marsden Motion? PPdd (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

More on Wong Kim Ark FAC
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is still being considered for possible promotion to Featured Article status.

Some questions have arisen regarding necessary / appropriate ways to expand the article to make it sufficiently comprehensive and avoid any possible "cherry picking". If anyone has the time to visit the article's Featured Article candidacy (FAC) page, review the current state of the article, and offer any observations or suggestions on the FAC page, the additional input would surely be helpful to all concerned. Thanks. — Rich wales 16:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

An article that needs some attention
A new article on Home Office Circular 46/2004, a UK Home Office ruling regarding police pensions, has been added to Wikipedia. I have expressed my concerns about the article on its talk page, but I believe attention from someone more versed on the subject matter would be useful. Any help is welcome. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cases needed re appointment of counsel in 1367 and Marsden
Does anyone have knowledge regarding whether the court must apppoint a new special counsel when a defendant opposes 1367 or 1368 or makes a Marsden Motion? PPdd (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What are those? Please explain. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Shield laws in the United States
This article is really a mess. It's an important topic for which there is plenty of source material available. The article should really give a state-by-state summary of laws and decisions. I am also bringing this to the attention of WikiProject Journalism. Yworo (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started to work on it. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC Infobox patent
At the request of another user, I have created a mockup template for what may be Template:Infobox patent which may be seen at the right. Is this within the scope of this project?

Do the members see how this might be improved? Your suggestions are welcome. The template documentation is here.

I have a concern that if something is patented in 50 countries that someone may try to shoehorn the list of numbers in the box. How might this be prevented?

Thank you for your consideration, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  16:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks good to me. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Foley Square trial
Hi,

This article is up for GAN and I'm reviewing it. Someone has suggested on the talk page that it be merged with Dennis v. United States per the conventions here for naming legal articles. Further, I'd like some advice on whether this article follows conventions for describing a trial. (It seems to have mostly political rather than legal issues.) Any advice/help would be appreciated. These are my comments so far: Talk:Foley Square trial/GA1. I'd like to know if I'm really off base.

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi fellow Wikipedians (process and law on Wikipedia)

 * Should Is Hindawi a RS publisher for this content? (thread on RS/N) and Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion (restored from archive), (thread on ANI) be regarded as something worth the attention of the Arbitration committee?


 * A non-admin developed a cabal of his own and closed a free RS/N discussion. He brought the closure before ANI for review, but almost no one want to touch the hot potato. I don’t know why and need your help. I welcome a comment from you. Thanks. Granateple (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Law will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in law and laws relating to women's history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah. Yes, that would be great.  What about an edit-a-thon about female judges or notable female litigants? Bearian (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in definitions of "congressional-executive agreement"
See Talk:Treaty/Archives/2013. The Transhumanist 04:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Trademarks
Since I assume that the issue of trademark and trademark dilution may be of interest to members of this project, I just wanted to let you know that the Wikimedia Foundation is hoping to get some guidance on how it is determined if a trademark is or is in danger of becoming generic in terms of reference in Wikipedia articles. If you know something about how this is done or have an interest in the topic, please feel free to contribute to the thread at village pump policy. Input would be very welcome. :) Thank you! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The section headed "scope" on the project page
At the moment, in the section headed "scope", under the subheading "the common law", we have this:


 * As a foundation for this effort, it is vital that we create a comprehensive explanation of the common law, which is shared by most English-speaking countries. The common law is clearly divisible into a number of key areas, each of which should be tackled and developed in turn. These areas are:
 * Contract law
 * Tort law
 * Property law, including Real property, Wills and Trusts
 * Criminal law
 * Evidence

On the strength of the book Learning the Law by Glanville Williams, I suggest that the list should be changed to:
 * Criminal law
 * Civil law
 * Substantive law
 * Adjectival law

I suggest that tort, contract and property are part of civil law, and that evidence is part of adjectival law. James500 (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark FAC still open
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is still being considered for promotion to Featured Article. The article is badly in need of additional reviewers. Please consider reading the article carefully, then going to the article's Featured Article candidacy (FAC) page (here) and commenting as you feel is appropriate. Please note that much of the FAC discussion for this article has been moved onto the talk page. The criteria for what a Featured Article needs to be can be found here. Thanks. — Rich wales 23:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Presumed Guilty (2009 film)
The subpage, Assessment, has not been substantially updated since November 2011 until now. Therefore, I have added your WikiProject banner into this article's talk page. I wonder if you could cleanup and then rate its Importance or Grade. --George Ho (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade at Featured Article Review
nominated Roe v. Wade 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. NW ( Talk ) 16:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Klarman
This page could use some cleanup. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Question on Style
Hello. I came across a comment on a law-related article from a user that suggested that there is an accepted Wikipedia style for naming articles along the lines of "Contract law in [Country]". I was wondering if this is the case? Certainly there are examples: Contract law in Canada, Contract law in South Africa. I am working on Scots law related articles at the moment, and all of them use the style Scots contract law, Scots family law, etc. Should these be renamed? Thanks. Connolly15 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

United States v. The Progressive
This is a fascinating legal case, anyone want to collaborate on improving the page with me? Please leave a note on my user talk page, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * United States v. The Progressive

Proposed Edits to Bloomberg Law
Hey all, I wanted to propose some changes to the Bloomberg Law article. It has been flagged for needing to be "wikified" so I tried to tackle a draft that would accomplish that. I've added a few sections including "Creation and Services" that I think best organize and explain the service. I work on behalf of Bloomberg L.P. and realize that creates a conflict of interest. I have acknowledged my conflict of interest here and want to make clear that I intend to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines on the issue. With that, I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at my draft and, if found appropriate, please implement the edits into the article. My draft can be found in my sandbox here:User:RivBitz/Bloomberg_Law_Sandbox Thanks --RivBitz (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment request
I created the article Barratry (admiralty law) a couple of months ago, and I would like it assessed if you please. Thanks, D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A good start. You have a redirected link for your capital offense wikilink, and in your second paragraph where you wikilink United States, perhaps you might want to wikilink Law of the United States or use a specific link to a court historically dealing with admiralty issues on a federal level. You'll want to add some categories to the article as well, and perhaps a template footer for law and a side template for too. Sctechlaw (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:UK SI list
Hi. I was wodnering if anybody could come up with a way of making this template (in conjunction with Template:UK SI list/sublist) collapsible. It would help me greatly in my efforts of improving the annual lists of UK Statutory Instruments that I am currently single-handedly doing. I have started with List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 2012 if you want to see the end result. The list had not been started so I thought there would be no harm in trying this new style. Thanks, Jh  fireboy  Talk  00:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Improvement of the Template:WikiProject Law
Hi everyone. I have been looking at the banner that is put on talk pages in Law-related pages and cannot help but notice that it seems to be lacking in detail. I have occasionally done some work on the WP:MILHIST and their banner (Template:WikiProject Military History) is very useful for being able to review articles to be able to see which require more work and also it allows them to group the articles thematically and geographically. Is this something that WP:LAW could adopt in order to improve the WikiProject? If we get a consensus that it would be worthwhile, I propose that we organise a team or come up with a system in a similar vein to adopt some of these ideas to improve this WikiProject. Jh fireboy  Talk  02:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Fellows v. Blacksmith/archive2
I have nominated this article about a mid-19th century Supreme Court case concerning Native American law for featured. I would appreciate any comments from participants in this project. Savidan 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Seal of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Can we please get a picture of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, like we have for commons:Category:Seals of the United States district courts ?? I wasn't able to find one, can someone help me with this?? Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Plummer v. State
I recently created Plummer v. State (of Indiana) and I am trying to get it up to Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps I was foolish, having zero legal experience, but I saw a need and am trying to fill it.

It would be a huge help if someone could take a look at the article and improve it. Alas, when it comes to doing legal research, I am an excellent Electronics Engineer. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is likely to be deleted in seven days unless someone with some knowledge of the law offers assistance. See Articles for deletion/Plummer v. State. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Article sought
There's an article somewhere with a Latin name that describes a principle of law. Please help me find it. It refers to a principle based on a decision made long ago that just because a divorced woman may have a grudge against her cheating ex-husband doesn't mean that her testimony should be disallowed if she has good evidence. Basically, it means that WHY a person wants to testify doesn't mean her testimony is inadmissable. Thanks for the help! Chrisrus (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed on Smith Act trials article
An RfC has been created here regarding material covering legal appeals of some Smith Act trials. Input is appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Two things....
First, I made some major changes to the legal burden of proof article. Please feel free to revert any or all changes if they introduced any error into the article.

Second, did we ever develop a consensus as to whether there should be a &#8220;C-class&#8221; for the purposes of assessment or not? When they first created the C class, I think the consensus was that this project wouldn't have one. Then, as of the last time I remember (which was over a year ago), we had no consensus either way. Now, I see at WikiProject Law/Assessment, in the Instructions, where it says &#8220;The following values may be used for the class parameter&#8221; C-class is still absent. But in the &#8220;quality scale&#8221; underneath, there is a C-class, and furthermore, the C class actually has quite a large number of pages in it. so is &#8220;C&#8221; a valid grade for law articles, or not? Bwrs (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

London Government Act 1963 and Counties
This act is being used as sole reference in a large number of articles in wikipedia and I am not sure it supports the claims being made.

Online version here: 

Did this create a County called Greater London? Did this abolish the county of Middlesex (not just replace the county council)? Tetron76 (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that the County council article actually supports my interpretation although it still just cites this.Tetron76 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Greater London (excluding the City of London)" is a county "for the purposes of" the Lieutenancy Act 1997. The administrative county of Middlesex was explicitly abolished by the London Government Act 1963. More detailed response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. — Richardguk (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as Richardguk states above there is now a longer discussion on the UK Georgraphy talk page. I found the pdf which gives the key missing text. Althouth, the nuance of many of these terms is how Lawyers make a fortune and it becomes more complicated when they are being used as the sole reference in an article.Tetron76 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

United States Education Program/Courses/Intro to American Political Thought (Edward Erikson)
Hello! While patrolling new pages, I ran across a few articles created for this course. At least one was copied verbatim from a court document. The document was public domain but not exactly encyclopedic. I attempted to contact the course's administrators on the course's talk page but never received a response. I'd like to go through the classes article and determine the notability of each case and take action accordingly but I don't know that simply using WP:BEFORE will work well as there's no specific inclusion guideline for cases.

I have to questions. One, is there anything I should look for notability-wise besides whether or not the articles satisfies WP:GNG and two, has anyone from this project been made aware that this course exists and/or been asked to help with the course? While I'm concerned about this and any course creating a large number of articles that don't conform to WP's policies and guidelines as their goal, I'm more concerned that education programs don't adequately utilize preexisting Wikiprojects related to their courses content.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  14:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge Enforcement discretion to Selective enforcement??
I put a merge tag on then thought I should come here. Obviously selective is the more popular term. I'm not sure if there is some more "legal terminology" that would make discretion the more "legal" term while selective might be a more moralistic term, or whatever. In any case, whether one or two articles, much work is needed. Selective has no refs and discretion only has a couple. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Free Highbeam Accounts
The internet research database HighBeam Research has 1000 free accounts available. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits on any Wikipedia. Here's the link to the project page: http://enwp.org/WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Feel free to sign up to help improve your work on this project's articles. CarolMooreDC 15:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012
(Follow up to Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act of 2011) "Had query on need for article on Wikiproject Internet for a while but no takers. Anyone here want to do it?? |/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=112||  Thomas Loator link. Lots of news hits.  It is true that this is at least 3rd year Lieberman has introduced it and just got a few sponsors.CarolMooreDC 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some started last week as Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act . CarolMooreDC 13:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Fraser v. Major League Soccer
I've started work on the article Fraser v. Major League Soccer concerning the legality of the league's unique single-entity structure. Just thought I'd put this out there. Any feedback or additional help is of course appreciated. --Blackbox77 (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Official Secrets Act (India)
I came across this whilst on an assessment drive - is there any reason why it should not be moved back to Official Secrets Act 1923, given that is its official name and there's no conflict with other jurisdictions AFAICT? It smacks of a parochial worldview as it stands. FlagSteward (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Anyone?FlagSteward (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see here
Talk:Murder_of_Oksana_Makar Thanks! Mootros (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Diplock courts exceptional or common?
The BBC reported in 2006 that non-jury trials in Northern Ireland (Diplock courts) were to be phased out but that "exceptional" cases could be tried as such, and ITV reported last month that such trials are "common". Can such trials be both exceptional and common? The BBC article itself is confusing, since the statement "... the Director of Public Prosecutions can decide that exceptional cases should be tried without a jury if there is a risk of jurors being intimidated" is not qualified and is stated as fact, whereas a following statement says "[t]he SDLP said this exception meant the government's position was 'confused', but the DUP insisted it was necessary." What is the best way to phrase their use? Use both phrases, "both exceptional and common for crimes connected to terrorism"? Int21h (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC at Correlates of crime
The input of members of this project is requested for and RfC about the title of the article Causes and correlates of crime/Correlates of crime. The question is whether that article should be called "Causes and Correlates of Crime" (and therefore treat statistical correlations and theories of causality together) or just be called "Correlates of Crime" (which better describes the current content of the article that does not provide any information at all about criminological theories of crime causation). Or should it have a different title all together?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Request move: California v. Anderson
Please see Talk:California v. Anderson.--Jiang (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Council/Proposals/Copyright
Feel free to discuss. This proposal is related to copyrights. --George Ho (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Help at Pennsylvania Bar Association
Would someone please help me in expanding Pennsylvania Bar Association? I am at a loss for how it ought to be expanded beyond the stub-level.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think that this article would have been expanded by now. I would suggest starting by keeping the same format as other bar associations like Kansas Bar Association and State Bar of Texas. --Morning277 (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some additional content to the opening and also placed a couple of citations to support the original content. --Morning277 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Made a few additions this morning in addition to the ones that you already did. It should be ready for another evaluation soon and I think we can remove the "stub" label from the page. I think it is moving a little bit about "Start" class. --Morning277 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Globalization Project Proposal
Hi WikiProject Law! I'm writing to inform you of my interest in starting a group that works on articles about globalization, in order to improve coverage of globalization on Wikipedia. Your group has banners on some of the articles that are key to this discussion, and I believe many perspectives and disciplines needs to come together if we're going to get it right. If you would consider supporting such a project, would you please swing by the Globalization Project Proposal and expressing that interest? Thanks so very much! LizFlash (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer review requested
I have requested a peer review of Menominee Tribe v. United States, the page to review it is here. Any help would be appreciated. GregJackP  Boomer!   03:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Grooveshark
The music-streaming service Grooveshark has been recently banned by Facebook over copyright concerns, and dropped from Google's YouTube and Apple's I-Phone (the latter two companies may have expertise in digital law and copyrights). It is also being sued by "all" major music companies, and already has been forced to remove Pink Floyd's music.

Lawsuits make my fellow civilians nervous. A lawyer's risk-averse and sharp eyes (or assistive/cyborg technology) would be very helpful in reviewing the article Grooveshark, which I've revised as an amateur.

Cheers, Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources
The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

RE Lord Roem: Request for Administrator
A writer of a legal article, User:Lord Roem is a candidate to be an administrator. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  07:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Whistleblower protection in the United States
Can anyone here help me with a new section I've written for the Whistleblower protection in the United States article? Right now, the article focuses very heavily on procedure and I thought it would be helpful to add a section about exemptions and limitations to the legal protections that are in place. I've written up a draft section but am cautious about moving it into the article because I have included Heritage.org as a source and I work for The Heritage Foundation. If you're able to help, please read the section and my explanation on the article's Talk page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurmant (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I commend you for coming here to request that someone take a look at the content that you wrote. As you work for the Heritage Foundation and use them as a source, there would be a conflict of interest. I am more than willing to take a look at the content that you wrote and add it to the article (if appropriate). If you can paste the information into your sandbox I can take a look at it from there. If you cannot access your sandbox, put the information into a new section on  MY TALK PAGE. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it assumes unstated facts to presume that an editor citing a source published by his/her employer is a conflict of interest. The section of the conflict of interest policy that most nearly applies is WP:SELFCITE, which would only apply of the editor actually wrote the material that was published by the employer. The proposed passage does not seem to be a promotional piece, nor does it seem to make excessive use of the Heritage Foundation material, so there is nothing on the surface that would suggest a conflict of interest. Of course, there could be factors that Thurmant does not wish to discuss, in which case Thurmant could just leave the situation as it is and hope some other editor will add the material. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a great point. I assume conflict of interest based on the fact that the user feels it is a conflict of interest. I will not be able to tell until I see the material. If a response is received, I will put it into a subpage and send you the link for comment as well. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Morning277 and Jc3s5h, thanks for your replies here. As I said above, I'm just cautious about moving the material into the article because of the Heritage source — maybe even a little over cautious. In any case, your feedback is very helpful. Morning277, if you're still willing to review the draft section, you can find it on the article's Talk page here: Talk:Whistleblower_protection_in_United_States. I'll also paste it to your Talk page, in case you don't see my reply here. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I think that it would be appropriate from this point forward to take the discussion to the Article Talk Page. I already left a comment there and would appreciate anyone else to chime in with their thoughts as well. --Morning277 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Peer review requested for Ex parte Crow Dog
A peer review has been requested for Ex parte Crow Dog here. Any help on getting the article ready for a FAC review would be appreciated. GregJackP  Boomer!   04:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject International criminal law
Please add WikiProject International criminal law to the list of related WikiProjects. —Wavelength (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive table of all U.S. federal offenses
I want to create a comprehensive table of all U.S. federal offenses. This will be a massive project, so I'm thinking of creating it in a spreadsheet application first, with vlookups (or their OpenOffice equivalent) to pull in data from various sources, such as the USSG statutory index.

A few difficulties: Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas with reference to this? Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The way some of these statutes are written could make it difficult to put the statutory penalties in a table in any elegant way. See, for example,, which has a lot of cross-references.
 * Some of the sentencing guidelines have a lot of different possible base offense levels. For example,.


 * Leave the heading "Base Offense Level" off and just change the heading to "Notes". You can describe any difficulties there. Also, It would take forever to create a comprehensive list and would suggest starting with some of the more notable ones that also have links to cases cited in Wikipedia. I would suggest starting with some of the most notable figures who have been arrested and charged with federal offenses. You can then link the articles to the list. Just my 2 cents (which is worth about half of that). --Morning277 (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't know of anything specific, there must be a database somewhere (possibly at the Justice Department) that contains all this information already.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Grooveshark
An IP and now a new user have removed all discussion of copyright-infringement allegations, etc., from the lede.

A second opinion would be helpful.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  17:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The edit warring seems to have stopped, and I did shorten the lede. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Government, Politics and Law
Ping for my topic on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Government, Politics and Law: A Rather Problemsome Marriage. Int21h (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Court of Arbitration for Sport
Is this article within the scope of this project? The article could probably benefit from editors seeing it from a different angle. 85.167.110.79 (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for reassessment, Zadvydas v. Davis
Can someone look at Zadvydas v. Davis and reassess it? I just did a major expansion on the article. Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ex parte Crow Dog FAC
Ex parte Crow Dog is undergoing a WP:FAC review, any comments would be welcome here. GregJackP  Boomer!   19:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for editors to access free research databases!
The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to law and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now: In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up here.
 * HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries.  There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up here.
 * Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries.  There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available.  All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits.  Sign up here.

Federal program bribery
Just a quick heads-up, I am in the process of writing an article on the federal program bribery statute,. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 05:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton FAC
I've nominated Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton for Featured Article. It's about a land claim by two tribes for the majority of the land in Maine. Comments from participants in this project would be welcome here. Savidan 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Query: Naming articles
Hello all, I have a general query regarding article titles. Say, if I were to write an article on the Telecommunications law in Singapore, should I rather choose the title of the article to reflect the current statute regulating the Telecom industry ("Telecommunications Act (Singapore)") or should it rather be "Singapore Telecommunications law"? There are instances on both sides, such as "Telecommunications Act of 1996" (US) and "Communications Act of 1934" (US) and at the same time United States labor law. Thank you in advance! — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems to me to involve the difference between an area of law (where "law" is a mass noun) and a specific law (where "law" is a countable noun). There can be articles of both types.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC) and 16:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See also User talk:Tony1 (version of 14:15, 24 August 2012).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sexual assault vs. Sex crime
It has recently come to my attention that the definition of the term sexual assault in the lede section of that article seems to be perhaps problematic. If anyone here can find the standard definitions of either or both of the two terms sexual assault and sex crime, preferably with some indication of what qualifies as either, that would probably be very helpful. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See here and here for what John means. 109.123.115.222 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the IP editor for the clarification. I pointed out my reasons for removing the additions on these subjects at Talk:Sexual assault and think that any input on the topic might best take place in that section of the talk page, or, if wanted, in a separate section devoted to how we should define "sexual assault" and what material to include in that article. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Help requested on Talk:Euthanasia
At the talkpage Euthanasia there is a discussion going about avoiding prosecution in case of child euthanasia. A tandem is trying to change the wording "in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when non-voluntary euthanasia is performed on infants." into "in the Netherlands, non-voluntary euthanasia can be performed on infants under well-described and strict conditions". The latter version is, in my opinion, less accurate because it is a fact that by following the guidelines, a physician is just avoiding prosecution. No way that it is legal. The tandem ignores a long standing consensus and arguments brought in my me and by my long time adversary (!). Unfortunately, by now they are getting under my skin and I am getting annoyed. So more input necessary to avoid me exploding... The Banner talk 09:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Help requested at Henkle v. Gregory
Another editor and myself find ourselves out of our depths in summarizing the ruling on the motion to dismiss in this case, and a bit of clue would be deeply appreciated. See "McQuaid ruling" at Talk:Henkle_v._Gregory. Thanks in advance. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at it, but anyone else that wants to offer comments is welcome.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Twitter Joke Trial infobox
Could someone who understands UK law and the relevant infobox please help with that template on Twitter Joke Trial? It's currently incomplete, and commented out. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a suitable infobox to the page and filled in the relevant parameters.  Michael   An  on  15:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

US Embassy in Libya
Today's news caused me to take a look at Imminent lawless action and then Brandenburg v. Ohio. Both are in need of some attention, particularly the former. They will clearly be topical for a while. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there an article about 3TT laws school duping undergrads into law school?
There has been a lot of coverage about this, but I dunno if a specific article exists or if one is warranted. I can write a stub and I can research the relevant articles, if there is indeed interest.

My sister went to 3TT law school and has $150k in debt & no job since she graduated earlier this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on "3TT law school" or any sources to establish notability after a quick Internet search. However, if the law school has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it would be presumed to merit an article. When writing the article you should be particularly careful to adhere to a neutral point of view given your personal involvement. If you submit a draft at Articles for creation more specific feedback about whether the topic is suitable for Wikipedia should be provided. Michael   An  on  07:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What is a 3TT law school? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It is kinda like the opposite of a T14 law school for which there is no article, and therefore no notability either (if I'm reading between the lines correctly about not creating an article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 article needed
We will need an article about the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 this week. This is the law that directs the OMB to provide details about the automatic spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the fiscal cliff. It was signed into law August 7, 2012, and should have been ready last week. The report should be ready this week (starting Sept 10th} and will probably ignite several fireballs with Congress.

I would do it myself but I have never created a "federal act" article. They seem to have a specific format, especially in the lead, and I'm afraid I'd get it wrong. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't create articles but if you create a 1 sentence stub, i'll expand on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.198.33 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Terry Williams (condemned prisoner)
I've just created this article. I don't know which other articles should link to it. Currently there appear to be a bunch of links resulting from the use in many articles of a template that links to a page that currently redirects to the new article. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I went in, created some appropriate wikilinks, and expanded the article to cover the details of the crime.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Updating the Law Portal
I'm currently updating the Law Portal and have made a few proposals for changes at the talk page (and will make more proposals as I go along). I've left this message in case anyone else wants to get involved – it would be nice to have more input and to avoid the appearance that I'm talking to myself. Michael  An  on  08:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added another proposal to change the modules on the Law Portal. Michael   An  on  12:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)