Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 24

Does U.S. v. Flynn merit a page
Right now, United States v. Flynn is discussed as a section of Michael Flynn's personal page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#Investigations_after_leaving_the_Trump_administration There's some discussion on the Michael Flynn Talk page re: whether to create a separate WP page for U.S. v. Flynn: 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 Comments welcome re: when a case merits its own page (including whether there's something specific to wait on, such as the CACD's ruling on the writ of mandamus, or only if that's appealed, etc.). If there's a consensus to create a page for the case, I'd also appreciate an opinion re: whether it's now considered an appellate case in light of the request for a writ of mandamus, even though the case has not yet concluded in the District Court (IANAL). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Agreed with . I'm also willing to help you, actually I'm amazed we don't already have a page. I love writing about complex legal cases. Just yesterday I filled in the infoboxes for GSIS–Meralco bribery case. I also wrote Disini v. Secretary of Justice and Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel. While most of my edits are about Philippine law, I am American, and have represented myself pro se in American courts before. So, if you need a mentor, I volunteer. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also love to help.JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 09:05, 29 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)
 * I've done it for you, since this is a bit of a strange case where the discussion is taking place at here WT:LAW and not the article talk page, so we need a please see on the article page. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - 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)
 * Yes, I think this case is highly consequential, not to mention Kafkaesque, and deserves an article. soibangla (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, the case should have its own page.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

- 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)


 * Further discussion seems unnecessary, and spreading it to a 3rd venue is just a distraction. Be Bold. jhawkinson (talk) 20:42, 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)

I suggest posting here that there appears to be consensus that it be split, and do it now. soibangla (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * soibangla- Yes, but the problem is who will do it. I am a fairly novice editor, and if it's going to fall to me, I need help. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just write it already and take your best shot. The other will tweak and add it as needed.  Don't be crippled with fear.168.215.97.5 (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  and .  I was trying to encourage you; no need to be defensive.168.215.97.5 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely you want to start in your userspace, e.g. as User:FactOrOpinion/United States v. Michael Flynn. Feel free to ping me here or on my talk page if you'd like a review when you're done. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 14:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While it's not prohibited to start it in your userspace, a better alternative is to use Draft space; that's what it's there for, so: Draft:United States v. Michael Flynn. By its nature, this invites more collaboration, as others might feel that you 'own' the version in your userspace, rightly or wrongly, and feel inhibited on contributing to it there. So, I'd recommend Draft space instead. Mathglot (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - 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)
 * , no worries, and you're most welcome! Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 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)


 * --David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

New draft page for U.S. v. Flynn
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.

Link to Draft: Draft:United States v. Flynn

JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you checked the notability requirements? You'll need some sources that discuss the case. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I would spend less time worrying about the formalities of the move/split request and work cooperatively on the draft provided by : 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.
 * If I have time, I'll start with the formalities you speak of, if no other experienced editors have jumped on it... --David Tornheim (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * --David Tornheim (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with edits to Public law
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)


 * You need to remove the "doi:" prefix: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_web --Talpedia (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done this but still no luck EDIT: Scratch that. I figured it out.JapanOfGreenGables (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I fixed some of the errors  up for you. See if you can work out what was going from the diff:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_law&type=revision&diff=965365853&oldid=965224314  -- Talpedia (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Golden State Killer
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Golden State Killer. This is a discussion about renaming an article with the name of someone who has confessed to a crime but hasn't been convicted or sentenced. Sundayclose (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Online fora as reliable sources (or not) for factual info and commentary on legal issues
I'm curious how people view the following online fora with respect to WP:RS guidelines: SCOTUSblog, The Volokh Conspiracy, Lawfare, Just Security, emptywheel.

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., Reliable_sources) 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)
 * 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: ). 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: . 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:
 * 1) SCOTUSblog can be trusted to post the information from the expert without alteration, and to not alter it after it has been posted
 * 2) 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. BD2412  T 15:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * SCOTUSblog is very well regarded, and the site is explicit about who runs it and corrections: . 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)
 * Previously you asked 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 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):
 * 6 Where to post question re: intersection of WP:SPS, WP:BLP, legal cases, and legal fora as sources
 * 7 Q2 Re "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
 * I will try to remember to add permalinks later. I might copy over some of my responses here.   Will you plan to copy any of your responses here too?  --David Tornheim (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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 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 really doesn't do a good job, as noted here: . 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)

OK, I've revised and posted my questions to WP:RSN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Determining_whether_a_source_is_SPS_in_deciding_whether_BLPSPS_applies. The 3 sources I listed for discussion there are Just Security, Lawfare, and SCOTUSblog. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with definition of probable cause
I raised a point at Talk:Burden of proof (law) that should be resolved by an expert. Joriki (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with definition of harmless error
I went to the talk page of the article on harmless error to point out an inconsistency and found that it had already been pointed out in 2008 (!). An expert should resolve the issue raised at Talk:Harmless error. Joriki (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert L. Birmingham up for deletion
Long time law professor. Many influential articles. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Request some eyes...
Can someone with J.D. and/or some Constitutional Law background have a look at this: --David Tornheim (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Marbury_v._Madison

Misrepresentation of international legal matter
I work for Supreme (brand), the clothing and skateboarding brand. Multiple false and deceptive statements have been added to Supreme (brand) 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) 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)
 * please read WP:NLT and WP:COI. GiantSnowman 16:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. On the Wikipedia libel page (here: ), 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). BD2412  T 18:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ending Qualified Immunity Act
Hi all

I just started Ending Qualified Immunity Act if others could add to it I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 always ping! 07:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Good to see this article up. Thank you. Lindenfall (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom Supreme Court cases
Hi All

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.

ThanksTracland (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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:.

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. BD2412  T 18:07, 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
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering.

Mentioning it here because it involves licensure and regulation information (and where to put it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

List of law firms
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)
 * I have moved this given no objection here or on article talk but shout if you disagree. Awbfiend (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Citizens not "patients"
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.

--Talpedia (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Where is this disagreement taking place, i.e., which article or WP:LAW page? - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  18:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like this is an example (subsequently reverted by Talpedia): -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These edits appear to be trolling vandalism. Clearly User:Lazidim and User:Jurist75 are the same person, so sockpuppetry as well. BD2412  T 19:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you FactOrOpinion. // I agree BD2412.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  22:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox treaty
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, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:23, 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)

Violence article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Violence. Considering that violence is a broad term (as is clear by the Wikipedia article), but it is especially relevant to the medical/health area, how to define the term in the lead sentence needs discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's now an RfC: Talk:Violence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Help with article
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)

RfC about merging an article with the Involuntary commitment article
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Involuntary commitment. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Legalization of cannabis
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).


 * https://norml.org/laws/local-decriminalization/executive-summary/


 * https://www.mpp.org/issues/legislation/types-of-marijuana-policy-reform-laws/


 * https://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/marijuana-decriminalization-and-legalization-englishspanish


 * https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/marijuana-overview.aspx


 * 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)


 * MORE Act is getting a House vote this month. USA Today calls it legalization . ☆ Bri (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Rules of law
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.


 * Can someone add a line to Rule of Law (disambiguation) for the "a rule of law" sense? Dunno whether it should be a new article or a redirect. I note that the rule against perpetuities article begins "The rule against perpetuities is a legal rule in the Anglo-American common law..." with no wikilink for "legal rule". jnestorius(talk) 13:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Rule 34 move discussion
There is a move discussion at Talk:Rule 34 (Internet meme) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

WikiProject Forensic science
There is currently a proposal to start a new WikiProject for Forensic science. See WikiProject Council/Proposals/Forensic science for anyone who is interested, thanks. Jerm (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Intellectual property dispute article
First time caller, long time listener. I assembled an article on Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford, a high profile video game intellectual property dispute from last year. If anyone has time to comment on any obvious issues it would be greatly appreciated. Hope I'm doing this right. Jorahm (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 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
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Definition of genocide—input requested
Please see Talk:List_of_genocides_by_death_toll for a discussion on the legal definition of genocide (t · c)  buidhe  03:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

Talk:Chad_Wolf
Watchers may be interested in the above RfC, about the legal status of Chad Wolf's appointment at Homeland Security. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Federal statutes (and notability)
Can some of you take a look at this WP:AfD? 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: --David Tornheim (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/H.R._301_(113th_Congress)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Notability

Design assist
This needs a lot of work. Not sure if it's notable. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Entire article appears to be cut-paste copyvio. I requested speedy deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Family Court (Ireland)
Please help save this. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:People with acquired citizenship
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)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:38, 23 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.

Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation
Hey Counsellors: this short article has been nominated for deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 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 rated it as B-class, which is of course the highest rating that I can dispense without formal procedures. Interesting article. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Legalese
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)
 * You are correct! Muttnick (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR for royal assent
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)  buidhe  18:28, 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) 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)  buidhe  22:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

El Banna v. Bush
Could someone please update this case? Bearian (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Security guard § Maurice Novoa photos
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Security guard § Maurice Novoa photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Input needed at
The discussion at could benefit from input by someone with knowledge regarding US defamation/libel law as regards accusations of quackery. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 13:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.
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)

Error in map in "Civil marriage"
[This map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage#/media/File:Marriage_law.svg) is erroneous for Israel and Lebanon: Both states recognize foreign civil marriages (and have extremely popular marriage tourism to Cyprus for that very reason). Israel also recognizes gay marriage that way. -- 217.225.253.3 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 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)

Peer review for American Rescue Plan
Feel free to leave feedback in the peer review for American Rescue Plan, which is part of this project. If you guys have any suggestions, feel free to let me know there. --AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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)

I don’t have a COI related to this article, DocFreeman24. AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Notable cases evaluation
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 - who removed the whole section of “Notable cases” - answering 3 questions:

I would specifically value comments from User:7&6=thirteen, and, who commented on the of Reid Collins & Tsai article and know the subject well.
 * 1) Do you feel that "Notable cases" in this article provides value to Wikipedia users and should be kept?
 * 2) If “Yes”, does it need any changes?
 * 3) If “No”, why?

Author’s point of view
I have created this article as a paid editor. Prior to writing it I’ve checked some other articles about lawyers and noticed that some of the bigger ones (that go beyond stab or minimal information) have a separate section named “Notable cases”. Some examples are David Boies, Brendan Sullivan, Dean Pregerson, Alex Kozinski, Charles Antone Horsky, Martin W. Littleton, Tom Rickhoff, Adam Loewy, Chris Hansen (attorney), C. Vernon Mason, John J. Duffy Jr., Deepak Gupta (attorney), Ron Kuby, Michael Tigar, Yale Galanter, Michael W. McConnell, but there are much more. By the way, I noticed that this part is mostly present at articles about judges. Of course, I am aware of WP:OSE, just highlighting here that some articles about lawyers have this part, while others don’t.

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 that resulted in $475 million dollars of losses to its clients (mostly Mexican citizens). Classified later as a Ponzi scheme, 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 ) and several parties creating insolvency agreements approved by the courts in each of the three jurisdictions (“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 ). Reid and Diamond McCarthy consequently sued third-parties allegedly involved in the fraud including the law firm of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle (resulting in $24 million settlement), Deloitte & Touche auditors,    Wells Fargo and UBS banks.
 * Reid was one of the lawyers representing Omni Loan Co in the Brack v. Omni Loan Co., Ltd. (2008) case that clarified choice-of-law practice related to consumer bank loans made outside the state of residence.


 * In 2009, Reid got involved in an almost decade-long legal clash between San Antonio municipalities 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. These claims followed the same demands from the likes of Los Angeles in 2004, Chicago in 2005, and San Diego and Atlanta in 2006. The case proceeded to trial on October 5, 2009. On October 30, 2009, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total of $20.6 million in damages. Reid tried the case with two lawyers from McKool Smith.
 * 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.   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. On April 2013, de la Rua sued Shakira again under identical claims in the Los Angeles Superior Court. However, an LA judge dismissed the lawsuit in early in August 2013 on forum non conveniens. Previous attempts to sue Shakira in New York and Geneva also failed.
 * 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. The case was heard before a jury in December 2014 and resulted in a $40 million award for the investors.  Internal emails of Credit Suisse executives presented during the trial exposed that they were fully aware of the fraud.    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). In September 2015, this case resulted in a $287.5 million judgment in favor of Highland’s Claymore Holdings.

Comments
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarmadillo (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Working on constitutional colorblindness for class assignment
Hello, working on assignment for [constitutional colorblindness], would like feedback. Thanks. ~Tjacobs23~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjacobs23 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Notifying proposed moved of Judiciary of the Republic of Ireland to Courts of the Republic of Ireland
I've proposed moving Judiciary of the Republic of Ireland back to Courts of the Republic of Ireland, its old location. Talk page here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t Today, 4:34 pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk • contribs) 15:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on this RfC
Please see this RfC on whether the Alford plea justifies the "(criminal)" parenthetical disambiguator. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions — Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Heads up
Just a head up for the participates of the WikiProject Law, Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Hugo Black
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)

Help on Draft:Brnovich v. DNC
There's an ongoing consolidated SCOTUS case relevant to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution called Brnovich v. DNC. I'm not experienced in detailing scotus cases so I was hoping if people could jump in and help with the stub page I created. Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Project Merge has received a request to merge Mosaic_theory_(litigation) and Mosaic theory of intelligence gathering into the Mosaic theory (Fourth Amendment) article on 19 February 2021. I believe merge order is negotiable. Reason: From looking at the pages, they seem like WP:CONTENTFORKs that all deal with the US legal system from slightly different perspectives. Since two of them are of a decent length, it seemed like a non-trivial merge that should be discussed before. Discussion is >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest "scribble" 06:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured article advice
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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you for the advice. I'm going to go for it and try. Jorahm (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Bad law
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)

New video game copyright case
Hi! I created an article for Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc. and it's sorta rough right now. I could use another pair of eyes on it. Jorahm (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Certified Divorce Financial Analyst
Hi,

I am trying to get this post published. Not sure what to do though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Certified_Divorce_Financial_Analyst — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keirac2 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank
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)
 * 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)

Farooq Azeem
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)

RM for Template:USBill
There is a proposal to move the template USBill to U.S. bill; if you have an opinion one way or the other, the discussion is at Template talk:USBill. TJRC (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Article cleanup
Members of this group may be interested in this discussion on Talk:Parental alienation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at MOS:LAW
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal, which concerns the MOS guidance for the class of articles about "law by jurisdiction" (X law, Legal status of X, Legal status of X, Laws regarding X, etc.). — Goszei (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
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 . 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. Complete beginner, asking for personal knowledge and for improving a CiteHighlighter user script I am making. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * , 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.
 * Thanks for making that user script! DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Thanks for making that user script! DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making that user script! DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making that user script! DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * , great tip, thank you. What are some of the top law review journals? I'll add them to my reliable sources list. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:05, 14 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)
 * Please also note that we have access to Hein, Oxford Law and more relevant portals via The Wikipedia Library. Best regards, Aschmidt (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at MOS:LAW
Hello lawful people,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:

CalCode

 * embedded, so you get to include the code name in the link:

AltCalCode

 * most convenient: code-by-code, so only the template name is required, like so:

Individual Templates
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 Chattopadhyay   talk  22:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This is great! Thank you.  Urve  (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, and here is a dynamic list of all the templates:

— Amitabho Chattopadhyay   talk  23:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Efficient breach
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)

Article that appeared in multiple law reviews
Felix Frankfurter's article Mr. Justice Cardozo and Public Law appeared in the Harvard, Columbia, and Yale reviews as part of a joint publication honoring the recently-deceased Justice Cardozo. This makes for an awkward citation (see for example Felix Frankfurter). What's the right way to handle the citation? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

New Shared Taskforce between WP-India and WP-Law
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, 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? BD2412  T 04:11, 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)

WikiProject Council/Proposals Indian Law is up.
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)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject
Graham v. Connor	34,592	1,153	Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.
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


--Coin945 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1	Acquittal ( t · h )	Top	2020-02-22 ( t )	Start	2020-02-22 ( t )
 * 2	Administrative law ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 3	Appeal ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-17 ( t )	Start	2013-10-17 ( t )
 * 4	Assault (tort) ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-14 ( t )	Start	2014-04-07 ( t )
 * 5	Bailment ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 6	Capacity (law) ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 7	Case law ( t · h )	Top	2016-12-31 ( t )	Start	2016-12-31 ( t )
 * 8	Civil code ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 9	Civil law (common law) ( t · h )	Top	2014-04-09 ( t )	Start	2013-10-13 ( t )
 * 10	Code of law ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-14 ( t )	Start	2013-10-14 ( t )
 * 11	Company ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2018-10-15 ( t )
 * 12	Conspiracy (civil) ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-13 ( t )	Start	2013-10-13 ( t )
 * 13	Constitutional law ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 14	Court of Justice of the European Union ( t · h )	Top	2020-02-04 ( t )	Start	2014-10-05 ( t )
 * 15	Courthouse ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 16	Criminal code ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-13 ( t )	Start	2013-10-13 ( t )
 * 17	Damages ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 18	Deterrence (penology) ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-13 ( t )	Start	2013-10-13 ( t )
 * 19	Economic torts ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 20	Estoppel ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-29 ( t )	Start	2013-10-29 ( t )
 * 21	Exclusive right ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 22	Executive (government) ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-25 ( t )	Start	2013-10-25 ( t )
 * 23	Executive officer ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 24	Extrajudicial detention ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-14 ( t )	Start	2013-10-14 ( t )
 * 25	Family law ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2014-04-07 ( t )
 * 26	Fine (penalty) ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 27	General Court (European Union) ( t · h )	Top	2020-02-04 ( t )	Start	2020-02-04 ( t )
 * 28	Guilt (law) ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-14 ( t )	Start	2013-10-14 ( t )
 * 29	Ignorantia juris non excusat ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-14 ( t )	Start	2013-10-14 ( t )
 * 30	Intention (criminal law) ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 31	Johnson v. M'Intosh ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-14 ( t )	Start	2013-10-14 ( t )
 * 32	Joint and several liability ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 33	Judiciary ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 34	Legal case ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 35	Legal history ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 36	Legislation ( t · h )	Top	2014-08-27 ( t )	Start	2014-09-16 ( t )
 * 37	Legislature ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 38	Madhhab ( t · h )	Top	2017-12-17 ( t )	Start	2017-12-17 ( t )
 * 39	Mafia state ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-17 ( t )	Start	2013-10-17 ( t )
 * 40	Malpractice ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2019-05-04 ( t )
 * 41	Martial law ( t · h )	Top	2016-04-29 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 42	Martial law in Russia ( t · h )	Top	2020-03-27 ( t )	Start	2020-03-27 ( t )
 * 43	Mens rea ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 44	Officer of the court ( t · h )	Top	2018-05-02 ( t )	Start	2018-05-02 ( t )
 * 45	Oral contract ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-14 ( t )	Start	2013-10-14 ( t )
 * 46	Perjury ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 47	Precedent ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-02 ( t )	Start	2013-11-02 ( t )
 * 48	Public interest law ( t · h )	Top	2014-09-13 ( t )	Start	2014-09-13 ( t )
 * 49	Public international law ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 50	Public law ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 51	Restitution ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 52	Statute ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 53	Statute of limitations ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 54	Sui generis ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-18 ( t )	Start	2013-10-18 ( t )
 * 55	Tax law ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 56	Testimony ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 57	Theft ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 58	Venue (law) ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 59	Void (law) ( t · h )	Top	2013-10-13 ( t )	Start	2013-10-13 ( t )
 * 60	Will and testament ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 61	Witness ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 62	Writ ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )
 * 63	Wrongdoing ( t · h )	Top	2013-11-04 ( t )	Start	2013-11-04 ( t )

Good Article Reassessment for Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump
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)

Penalty rule / clause
See Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.. It uses the terms penalty and penalty rule. The page "penalty" didnt make me wiser:
 * Penalty (contract) is a redirect to Penalties in English law. Whereas we also have an almost unreferenced Civil penalty page, which looks prety close in basic meaning to be disambiguated
 * Sentence (law) lssted in "Penalty", probably as a synonym, does not look suitable.

Also there is another undefined term, penalty clause.

Please fix'em all 'cause I'm aint no lawwyer to do it myself. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Bill_Cosby
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)
 * Situation resolved with the help of three WP:LAW members. Much appreciated!  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal question -- Violation of SafeSport Code vs violation of penal code
Hi. I am having trouble explaining myself to an editor. As to the technical legal distinction between: a) a violation of the SafeSport Code; and b) a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallyfromdilbert&action=edit&section=17 I understand how one could in good faith be confused on this point easily. (pinging User:wallyfromdilbert).

I pointed out to him that the two are different. The elements, proofs, and standards of proof are different. And one is civil, the other is criminal.

I tried explaining further, in this edit which he deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallyfromdilbert&diff=1032648786&oldid=1032647044

I tried one last time. Pointing out that the Code states quite unambiguously at Section XI(E)(1): "the standards  for  finding  a  violation  of criminal  law  are  different  from  the  standards  for finding a violation of the Code". But he deleted that as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallyfromdilbert&diff=1032649653&oldid=1032649227

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?

I would suggest keeping the discussion in one place on his page, where it started, but as he has deleted explanations of mine there, it is likely better to discuss here. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested article
Hum Fay, et al. v. Baldwin, also known as the Chinese Boycott Case. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD for Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross
Hi law folks, an AfD is currently open for Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross (see discussion). Basically no discussion, so it could use attention from someone familiar with court case notability. Suriname0 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing articles for UN treaties
Hi all

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.


 * 1) Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98487293
 * 2) Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12120337
 * 3) Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98488248
 * 4) Trademark Law Treaty https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11418793
 * 5) Washington Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98489149
 * 6) Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12120337
 * 7) Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98489466
 * 8) Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98489480
 * 9) Vienna Agreement Establishing an International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q98489785

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Best way to collaborate on video game clone
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)

Requested move at Talk:Order in Council
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Order in Council that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Database of Federal Statute Names
I stumbled on Yale's Database of Federal Statute Names today. I thought it would be worth bringing to the project's attention as a potential resource. TJRC (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Twenty-Tens Decade Started
Hello editors of the WikiProject of Law. I wanted to inform you guys that the WikiProject of the Twenty-Tens decade started recently. Feel free to join the new WikiProject! Elijahandskip (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Need of help for the structure of an article
Hello! I am having some troubles making a clear structure for Canon law of the Eastern Orthodox Church: I cannot seem to make good section titles or a good hierarchy between the sections (what should be headings and what should be sub-headings). Could anyone help? Veverve (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sub judice
Does sub judice apply in UK civil cases? Mjroots (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say ‘yes’ e.g this and this. DeCausa (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For context, the question is in relation to this TfD. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
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 Farm Talk 05:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

RM Skadden to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
An editor has requested for Skadden to be moved to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &. Since you had some involvement with Skadden, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Legal technology
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)

Requested move at Talk:Societal views on patents
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Societal views on patents that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Contributions welcomed at Draft:Naming, Blaming, Claiming
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 &#183; c)  buidhe  23:28, 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. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiLaw notice
I am going to just plug WikiLaw (3) for anyone currently watching this page. I don't recall ever doing that before. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Sub judice § Documentation
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Sub judice § Documentation. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Florida Senate Bill 90
Hey, would someone mind looking over the text on Florida Senate Bill 90 (2021) that an IP editor keeps reverting on NPOV grounds? I've tried to make it as neutral as I can but I'm not sure if it is or not. Thanks in advance Gazamp (talk) 16:05, 9 November 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)


 * Done - thanks for having a look at it! Gazamp (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Al-Kateb v Godwin
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 &#183; c)  buidhe  22:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
If anyone has an opinion on whether Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act should be merged into Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, please add your opinion to the discussion. Thank you! Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Query about PRODs on legal cases
Hello,

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. Liz Read! 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)

Proposed redirect: Race and crime→Race and crime in the United States
A redirect proposal that may interest members of this project is taking place at. –– FormalDude  talk 04:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice
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)