Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 8

A notable defamation case?
See my comment at this Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute regarding Illegal immigration and the Immigration and Naturalizaton Act
Illegal immigration to the United States states, Residing in the United States in violation of immigration law is not a crime but a civil violation, but this civil offense should not be construed to diminish or qualify any other penalties to which an illegal alien may be subject Terjen argues that this is original research. However, the Immigration and Naturalization Act section 274 D states, 274D CIVIL PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO DEPART SEC. 274D. (a) IN GENERAL.-Any alien subject to a final order of removal who-

(1) willfully fails or refuses to-

(A) depart from the United States pursuant to the order,

(B) make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary for departure, or

(C) present for removal at the time and place required by the Attorney General; or

(2) conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper the alien's departure pursuant to the order,

shall pay a civil penalty of not more than $500 to the Commissioner for each day the alien is in violation of this section.

(b) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish or qualify any penalties to which an alien may be subject for activities proscribed by section 243(a) or any other section of this Act. and the policy on original research states, Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. . The article states elsewhere that the INA is the definitive source for illegal immigration law. So, I guess the question I'd like an opinion on is "Is 'this civil offense should not be construed to diminish or qualify any other penalties to which an illegal alien may be subject' a proper summary of 'Nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish or qualify any penalties to which an alien may be subject for activities proscribed by section 243(a) or any other section of this Act' and, if not, then what would be?"-66.194.62.5 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To be most useful to editing that article, I suggest simply noticing the issue there and carrying on a discussion on the talk pae of the article in question. Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern is only with the second part of the sentence, "but this civil offense should not be construed to diminish or qualify any other penalties to which an illegal alien may be subject". The first quoted part has been throughly discussed in the past, including here in the section Are journalists and newseditors reliable sources on law.?, which also was initiated by user:66.194.62.5 but then using the handle user:66.213.90.2 and later in the section posting as user:198.97.67.58 and user:198.97.67.59. I concur in keeping further discussion on the Talk page for the relevant entry. Terjen (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Scope of law
Looking specifically at the article on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it came to my attention that, although this is described as UK law, the act may not cover, or apply to in full, the whole of the United Kingdom. I suspect there are other articles which need this clarification - particularly due to the fact that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all now have region-specific laws and assemblies. Sometimes, it seems, "British law" applies only to England & Wales - not to Northern Ireland or Scotland, depending on the law. Please take a look at Talk:Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Cheers. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered at talk page; in short, the Act applies to E+S+W and a Order mirroring the Act covers NI. BencherliteTalk 14:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Expert opinion needed
In the course of some recent new page patrolling, I have come across a number of articles by who appears to be transcribing the history of many laws (some major, some relatively minor) into the Wikipedia. Several of these articles have been flagged as copyright violations, only because I could actually find the source of the articles, but others are probably transcribed from sources not available online.

I'm no laywer, so I'd like to ask some members of this Wikiproject to have a look at these contributions and, if they are valuable, perhaps take a shot at improving them to meet the Wikiproject Law style guidelines, and if they are not valuable, to perhaps contact the author and let him know. He is expending a great deal of effort with these transcriptions, and it seems it would be a waste of his time if all the article are eventually going to be deleted. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Update recently left this comment on  talk page, indicating that the source of all of his articles is his own original research.  In light of this, should the articles be left as is, tagged, or nominated for deletion?  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a project member, came here from the recent boulder of edits. I'd support taking every last one of them to Afd at the same time as OR.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  00:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you "join" the project?
Just need to know how to put my name out there as a project member. Do I just edit the "active" list to include my name? I have been an attorney in Oklahoma for 30+ years and my specialty is research/writing/appeals. Briefer (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just add your name to the list of active editors. Welcome on board! -- Rodhull andemu  13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Briefer (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on new citation template
Hi. I've started a discussion at MOS here regarding a new citation template I've created for citing Canadian federal & provincial statutes. Your feedback would be appreciated. // roux   14:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is a former County DA and New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division notable?
By BIO standards, that is not enough because "first-level sub-national" office would translate into New_York_Court_of_Appeals. Frank Gulotta is the article that made me ponder this question. He does have an obituary in NYT, but that's about all I could find about him. Pcap ping  14:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The other source linked in the article describes him as the "first of his heritage in Nassau history to hold countywide office". That should count for something in the notability department. bd2412  T 22:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act
I merged and redirected the unassessed stub Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act into the partially assessed (by another project) National Maximum Speed Law.Synchronism (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Reasonable person"
Reasonable person. Still need to add in parts about the calculus of negligence, Learned Hand, and U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., and a whole section on circumstances, etc. Foofighter20x (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Finished. Please, by all means, go nuts on it! Foofighter20x (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England
The article Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England has had to be deleted as a copyright infringement. Since it is of interest to your project, I wanted to note it in case someone would like to create at least a stub to fill the gap. The article was featured on DYK on 16 January 2008, but from the inception of the article it had evidently been pasted from a for-purchase student essay. (See Copyright problems/2008 November 20.) It is marked of "high" importance, so I have left the talk page in the hopes that it will not be orphaned for long. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to update: I did contribute a few sentences just to eliminate the redlink. It certainly isn't sufficient attention due an evidently highly important article, though, so my request for assistance stands. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Chief Justice Dieterich, Wisconsin Supreme Court
Here is a proposal to move an article about a senator over William H. Dieterich, a disambiguation page. Another person by this name was William H. Dieterich (judge), a Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The article William H. Dieterich (judge) is a stub and lacks references; please expand it and add references. --Una Smith (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question
I know this isn't the usual place for this question, but I haven't had any luck at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and I'm hoping someone here might know.

I was reading a discussion at [], which combined with this upenn.edu page, seems to be saying that the first two issues of Whiz Comics (and some other comics) are in the public domain. Anyone have a clue? Can Image:Whiz2.JPG be used without a fair use rational? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether Captain Marvel is in the public domain. Cartoon characters fall under trademark law.  It may be that the original author of those comic books did not renew their copyrights in a timely fashion before 1964.  If this is the case, then the words, story, and layout of the cells could be substantially similar.  The mark "Whiz Comics" and the character of Captain Marvel may still be in use and therefore not in the public domain for Trademark purposes.  Your best bet is to follow an identical rationale to that of Mickey Mouse.  Place the image in an identical resolution to that of the mouse and you should be OK. 76.124.87.208 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I definitely has something to do with the difference between copyright and trademark. One cannot use Superman as one likes, but http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg is in the public domain (see Superman (1940s cartoons)).  Can anyone tell me for sure? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Captain Marvel = definitely still under copyright. See Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2002): "During 1941, [Timely Publications] published the second through tenth issues of Captain America Comics. Shortly after their publication, Timely applied for and received certificates of registration of the copyrights for each issue of the Works". Sometime in 1968 (while litigation on the works was pending) "Timely's successor in interest applied to the Copyright Office for renewal of the copyrights in the Works". This means that the work was in its 28-year renewal term in 1968, so it was still covered by copyright when the 1976 Copyright went into effect (which extended copyright in subsisting works by 19 years to bring it to an even 75), and that means it was still in copyright in 1998 when the Sonny Bono Act extended copyright in subsisting pre-1978 works by another 20 years to bring it to 95 years. So Captain Marvel will be in copyright for 95 years after 1941, which is until 2036. bd2412  T 18:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million for responding. I haven't looked super close at what you've written, but it seems to be about Captain America not Captain Marvel.  Furthermore, I know Captain Marvel is trademarked, but I'm wondering about whether Whiz Comics #2 is copyrighted, which is different from the characters in Whiz Comics #2 later being trademarked.  I'm going to look at this more closely tomorrow, and I hope you will discuss/explain it to me then.  Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the big difference is "Timely's successor in interest applied to the Copyright Office for renewal of the copyrights in the Works". In the case of Whiz Comics #2 they must have been to late or something.  The upenn site says "Whiz Comics: issues renewed from March 1940 (v. 1 no. 3); see 1967".  Here's teh scan of the original  - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This conversation seems to have gotten confused between Captain America and Captain Marvel. The short of it is, Captain America was published in Captain America Comics #1 by Timely Comics Inc. which was renewed, therefore is under copyright, although Joe Simon, one co-creator, may enjoy some rights following a settlement with Marvel Comics, Timely's successor.  Whiz Zomics #2 was published by Fawcett Publishing and featured Captain Marvel.  Federal Judge Learnrd Hand ruled that Captain Marvel was a copyright infringement upon National Comics' Superman, but the disposition of this was later settled, and the decision was based, in my opinion, on surface concepts such as Billy Batson and Clark Kent both being reporters, and would be overturned today given the several thousand superheroes in the marketplace.  This being said, the copyright on Whiz Comics #2, which is seperate and distinct from Timely Comics, Marvel Comics or Captain America, was not renewed and is public domain.  This is further complicated by the fact that  Whiz Comics #2 is only numbered on it's interior and has no number on the cover, whereas Whiz #3 is listed as #2 on the cover.  March 1940 is the latter.  As to trademark, there is no registered trademark on Whiz Comics that I am aware of, and any trademark claim on Captain Marvel is just that, a claim.  One last note, using the cover of Whiz #2 in Wikipedia as an example would clealry fall under fair use as it is transformative,and is used for encyclopediaic purpose, not to sell or promote comic books. Hope this helps. 72.29.147.203 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Template listing all the US state Chief Justices
Someone has taken a lot of time to list all the Chief Justices of each state and collect them into a template and insert them in 1) the bio of each Chief Justice and into the article on the court of each state. Template:Current US state Chief Justices. A lot of work. My question is why? For what reason would anyone, even a child taking "sociak studies" want to ever go from an article about one state court to the chief justice of another, unrelated state court? They have no dealings between them. At least they are not supposed to! They don't even have a group picture or anything. I can tolerate, if not love, a template going from one judge to another (strictly bios). Still don't see why anyone would want to though.

There is a "companion" template that is in the court article that goes from one state court to another. This is useful IMO. A person reading about how one court works may be interested in the differences of another. That makes sense IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is actually kind of silly. A more useful template would be one listing all the chief justices of that particular court, sequentially. Of course, there's no reason not to have two, or a dozen templates on a page. bd2412  T 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A template to move from one justice bio to another within a state - that might make sense, I agree. I am a bit concerned about the proliferation of templates. We've all seen it with external links/references - when there are to many even experienced editors blanch at looking at them. So it is not unusual for someone new to discover that a reference is bogus or spam that has been there for quite awhile. Just too many for the rest of us to test. It won't be long before we see this with templates, I'm afraid. Student7 (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a perfectly good template for all state supreme courts with  :

If we put that on every Chief Justice page, anyone with an interest in Chief Justices of parallel courts will at least have a handy link to those parallel courts, and will only be one extra click away from seeing their Chief. bd2412 T 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a bit surprised no one asked the template creator, but i am here nonetheless. It is fairly standard at Category:United States political leader templates to include templates on both the office (Illinois Secretary of State or New York Attorney General) and the officeholder articles.  See U.S. state Chief Justices, U.S. State Secretaries of State, U.S. State Treasurers, Speakers of U.S. state Houses of Representatives, and U.S. State Attorneys General.  I was just designing a template that seemed to follow common practice at wikipedia because the dozens of editors involved in these templates seem to concur with the current design.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. the template that you are proposing for the chief justice page is very uncommon format for such usage. Usually the desired template type is one that has the article name for the article it is placed on.  I see very few bio articles that prefer a general field of study template to the point where it displaces templates with the biographical name.  Obviously adding such a template could be appropriate, but using it to displace the templates with the bio article names is extremely odd wikipedia practice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted the edit adding this template from Alaska Supreme Court a couple months ago, and the template author TonyTheTiger contacted me today objecting to the revert. I was about to open this discussion when I saw it had already been started.


 * My view is that, if this template is to be used at all, it should be placed only on two types of articles: 1) articles about a particular individual state supreme court chief justice; and 2) articles about a particular office of state supreme court justice. It should not be placed on articles about the state supreme court itself.


 * On my talk page, Tony suggests that there may be cases where there is (or at least, he suggests, ought to be) a redirect for a particular office of state supreme court justice, pointing to the article on the court itself, and that this justifies the presence of the template. For example, he suggest that there should be a redirect from  Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice to Alaska Supreme Court (there isn't); and this justifies treating the article on the Alaska Supreme Court as an article on the Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justice.  I disagree with this.  Either the office itself merits an article or it does not.  An article on a court shouldn't have a template that covers another subject, even if that subject redirects to it.  TJRC (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose there may be states with article such as Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justices or List of Alaska Supreme Court Chief Justices. I don't think there are too many such articles, but if these articles are not wanted on the Supreme Court pages so be it.  I think many states would actually include such a list in a section of the supreme court article rather than create a separate article.  Thus, the placement of the template.   I think above the articles about the Office Illinois Secretary of State and the set of officeholders Illinois Secretaries of State or List of Illinois Secretaries of State are not distinguished as finely as you suggest. I doubt much thought has been given to which page to place the template at. Holy Cow! A quick look shows it is not on eigher page, but upon random selection it is at Secretary of State of New Mexico. I am having trouble properly splitting hairs on the second location where these Chief Justice templates belong.  There is currently discussion about this issue in more generality based on some Mayor templates I created that have caused a fuss.  The debate is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography.  I think the problem here is that because the articles have in general not been split/created for the office the placement is O.K. on the court.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By and large, state supreme court chief justices are only distinguished from their fellow justices by a few administrative tasks. On many state courts, the chief justice is selected his or her fellow justices, or acquires the office by rotation. It would make as much sense to list all justices rather than simply chief justices. bd2412  T 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this different than Speakers of U.S. state Houses of Representatives? I believe this template serves the same purpose.  Furthermore it does not exclude the use of a template of his peers (see James R. Winchester, a chief justice, or Michael_Madigan, a speaker).  Also, you never explained why you have such an odd preference for a general field of study template for all justices.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, I think you're looking at the issue the wrong way around. You've got the template, and are asking the question, "what's the best place to put this template?"  But articles don't serve the templates; it's the other way around.
 * I guess what I am asking is what is the best way to use a template in the manner that is commonly accepted at Category:United States political leader templates. It is just so unorthodox for a set of leaders to have a preference for a template that does not link to any of them or link them together.  Also, is it really that unimaginable that a social studies student could be reasearching chief justices?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus I see emerging here is that the best way to use this template is not to use it at all. The fact that it's been created (and I acknowledge the work you put into creating it) does not mean that it's a good idea to use.  TJRC (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By my unscientific sampling, I've seen no instance of the template being added to any article except by the template author; and not a lot of support for it here. This suggests to me that the template is filling an unfelt need. TJRC (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is quite common for a template creator to add his template everywhere it is reasonable/appropriate. I usually get annoyed when I see someone was too lazy to do so and it should be on a page I created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one possibility. Another is that only the template creator thinks the template is a good idea. TJRC (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more I think this is a better job for a category than a template. We have the category Category:State supreme courts for the courts themselves. If it's worth tracking the chief justices, a category strikes me an appropriate way to do this.

Also, assuming that this does not belong on the articles about the courts (because the court is not the CJ), I note that the articles on actual CJs, where it would arguably be appropriate, are often pretty short, with the effect that the template dominates the article, overwhelming the article itself. A category would not have this problem. TJRC (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To do the function of the template, the category should specifically contain current Chief Justices of U.S. States. We should have a separate set of categories for all chief justices, divided by state. bd2412  T 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions
Looks like we're all talked out on this, since no new views have been expressed for a few days. As I read this, only the template creator is in favor of the template's use. The consensus is not to use the template; or, at most, to restrict its use to articles about individual CJs or their offices, and not in articles about the courts themselves. Is there any disagreement? TJRC (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I will take it from the silence that there is no disagreement. TJRC (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Law: Further Reading list
There is a discussion here about the utility of the long further reading list which User:Mervyn Emrys created (see this version of the article), admittedly committing much time and effort. My question is whether this list really adds anything to the article, and if it makes an already long FA even longer. Your input would be appreciated.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Annulment needs attention.
As I wrote on the talk page, too much attention is given to annulment in the context of Catholic doctrine when a separate article exists for that and is linked to. Beyond religion, the US state of New York is the only jurisdiction discussed. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Insanity
There is a discussion here concerning the inclusion or otherwise of a quote from Albert Einstein (although its provenance is in doubt); currently consensus would appear that it is irrelevant (being only one person's interpretation), and such a section will become a magnet for all sort of trivia; the trend being that it should not be included. Further opinion would be welcome. -- Rodhull andemu  17:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consider Covenant
As the talk page describes, the general definition of Covenant is disputed. The Common Law section is probably OK (you could check that too), but can we have some input on the introductory paragraph.

Mark Hurd (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

New attribution/link template!
Hello everyone, I created a new template, FJC Bio, which (unless there is substantial opposition to it) will supersede both FJC and JudgeBio. It is for use on articles on United States federal judges. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Loves it. bd2412  T 09:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Redo of project page
Hello, I redid your projects front page. If any one has any questions, gripes or comments, please feel free to posit them here. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 11:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note, a new version of the article template, WikiProject Law, has been created using the BannerMeta template. Would any one object to switching over to that? It can be found here. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 18:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)