This subject is outlined in the List of basic law topics. That page, along with the others in the set of Lists of basic topics, comprise an outline of knowledge, that doubles as a general table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.

Archives

Archive 1 - July - September 2005 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 - January - April 2007 Archive 5 - May-July 2007 Archive 6 - August 2007-April 2008

[edit] Securities fraud

Experienced editors are needed to flesh out this article. Please help. It should be at least ten times as long and far more substantive.--Bassettcat (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Before I go any further, I want to make sure that........

I happened on Ngan v R and shuddered at the legalese style used in the article. Not encyclopedic at all. Very informative, but bordering on a text dump IMMHO. So I started to edit it, but only got the two opening pars done when the thought crossed my mind that someone/somewhere might have agreed to present these articles in this fashion, and I was wasting my time. Anyone know? I changed the opening pars from

Kevin Jack Ngan v The Queen [2007] NZSC 105 is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, it was handed down on the 13th of December 2007.^[1] It considered the admissability of evidence of a crime that was discovered incidentally to an inventory search of a car accident. The court considered the scope and application of s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ. The judgement was unaminous with the reasons of Elias CJ, Blanchard and Anderson JJ given by Blanchard J.^[2] Tipping J gave his own concurring judgement,^[3] Mcgrath J agreed with the result but employed a different line of reasoning.^[4]

to

Kevin Jack Ngan v The Queen is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, which was handed down on December 13, 2007.^[5] The decision held that evidence of a crime discovered incidental to an inventory search of a car involved in an accident was admissible in court. The court considered the scope and application of Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, regarding the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

Sitting on the bench were Chief Justice Sian Elias, and Justices Peter Blanchard, Andrew Tipping, John McGrath and Noel Anderson. The judgement was unanimous with the reasons of Justices Elias, Blanchard and Anderson given by Justice Blanchard.^[6] Justice Tipping gave his own concurring judgement,^[7] and Justice Mcgrath agreed with the result but employed a different line of reasoning.^[8]

OK. Should I carry on? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of any grand scheme to turn these into legalese doubletalk - but you might want to run this question past Wikipedia:WikiProject Law and possibly (yeah, I know - they're the other side of the ditch) Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law - someone there might know whether it was deliberately written that wy. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tks. Have moved it to Wiki Project Law talk. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Second one seems preferable to me - can't see why the first would have been the result of any conversation about style or readability. Avruch ^T 01:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea to keep the citation. We put it in just about every court case. It would be required if anyone were to write a paper using the case. It also identifies the volume and page number in the reporter series so that one could find the case in a library [2007] NZSC 105. You may want to change the judgement sentences to active voice i.e. "Justice Blanchard gave an opinion for an unanimous court in which justices....joined." Second one is much better, it uses complete sentences as well. Legis Nuntius (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article criteria for articles about appeal decisions

I've raised this here. Briefly, for many of these articles, there is only one source- the official Law Report. This may make an article fail for lacking "multiple independent sources". Comments there are welcome. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Book Search Lawsuit

I'm considering starting an article on the Google Book search legal activity. I was surprised to find that the Google Book Search page had only one reference to a lawsuit and that was in a German court. This lawsuit will be critical to anything that touches copyright--that certainly includes all of us (on wikipedia). Any suggestions for name, content, or if I've somehow (embarrassingly) missed an already present article, would be appreciated.LH (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyons

Is anyone as shocked as I am that we do not have an article on City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983)? Did we before? Was it deleted? Or just never created? I can't believe it's not here it's in just about every con law book... am I missing something? Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup on Case law

I'm not versed in legal issues, but I came across the case law article and it seems to have multiple problems. I can't see where there is a list of law-related articles for cleanup, so I thought I'd just drop a note here so perhaps interested parties could work on it?? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and added under cleanup in the to do list. Perhaps one of the other headings would be appropriate, but at least cleanup is needed. This is especially true since case law is a fundamental aspect of most, if not all, English speaking jurisdications. Also, strangely enough, there is no Project: Law tag in the discussion of the subject. I'll add that as well.IMHO (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English law proposal

Francium12 has proposed a WikiProject devoted to English law here, if anyone is interested in showing support for the proposal. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is little support for a separate project, and a Task Force has been mooted here. Accordingly, if anyone is interested in working on this (and there is plenty of work to be done), please signify interest below:

• Yup --Rodhullandemu 02:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

There is a request for comment at Category talk:American criminals#What should be the threshold for inclusion of this category? which may interest members of this project. Aleta ^Sing 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia and vexatious litigants

Editors that have an interest in both law and Wikipedia's policies might want to look at a developing proposal (possible future policy) at User:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing. It appears to be an attempt to create a vexatious litigation clause for Wikipedia. The overall goal of this draft seems to be to give ArbCom a way to deal with "content disputes" of the sort where variations on a favorite idea are added by a problem editor, removed by someone else, and (re-)discussed endlessly, until all the good editors have been driven away by the wastefully repetitive discussions and the pet theory can be promoted without opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable

This (lonely) article could use any help it can get. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the administrative law standard of "arbitrary and capricious", but I've never heard of "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable". Is that something specific to New York (the state cited in the article)? Chicken Wing (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Category class

As I noted at Template talk:WikiProject Law, I added a Category-class to the template. There are a number of articles already tagged with it but they were still showing up as unassessed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National instrument

I've created a disambiguation page at national instrument. There appears to be a legal sense of the term, but I can't quite figure out what it is by googling. Can somebody help? Thanks Tuf-Kat (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

the term does not exist in Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition. Of the 24 different types of instruments listed in that source, the closest is public instrument, which is itself a synonym for public writing, "The written acts or records of a government (or its constituent units) that are not constitutionally or statutorily protected from disclosure." Treaties are instruments, but the term would be redundant because treaties are by definition agreements between 2 or more states, and therefore always national. A search for the term over every American federal court case yields 22 hits. Besides the federal litigation for the company, a couple of courts have used those words. Two Supreme Court cases from 1824 and 1917 involving banks and interstate commerce, and another from 1973 involving a standardized test for teachers used by the Department of Education. In each, the term is not used exactly the same based on context, but it is used as a descriptor for banks, The National Bank, and tests used to regulate teachers. This must be why it has not appeared in a google search. It is not a legal term. Legis Nuntius (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Drug Policy

Should we make Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy a sub-project of this one? Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

not a sub-project but possibly a "related project." Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to Chin Chill-A's banning, I've taken over the brunt of the administration of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy. It's new, but we've got a lot done. We're definitely in need of some good legal minds, though, as there's a lot of overlap between policy and legality. If any of the members here feel that they might be able to contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy and the more legal/legislative pages within it, please consider this a formal invitation and thanks in advance. Regards Shamanchill (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rape v. sexual assault

Rape has strayed from the legal definitions of the offense, although it is still under wikiproject law. Sexual assault is a much shorter article. I have made a proposal for reorganizing the two articles on the talk:rape page. Comments are welcome. Legis Nuntius (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion sorting

Not sure if participants are aware, but there is a system for sorting deletion debates by topic area, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law to allow law-related deletion debates to be sorted, and allow interested parties to watch and participate in debates relevant to their expertise or area of interest. Hope it is of use, all the best, Hiding T 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burger King legal issues assistance request

I followed a GAN review trail to Burger King legal issues recently and ended up in a difference of opinion on quality issues with the article's GA nominator and principal author. One concern I have is that a number of assertions made in the Lead are unsupported by or representative of the material in the article body. I'm not saying the statements are necessarily inaccurate, but for various reasons the other editor doesn't feel the need to place the relevant statements in the body. Similarly, he feels that statements made in sources and links do not need to be explicitly referenced in the article, thus the need to only summarize them in the Lead and leaving it to the reader to explore the links (external and internal). My major concern is over statements that the three cases treated in the article are characterized as "precedent-setting", but none of them has any reliable sources supporting that analysis (and only one of the three is actually described as such in the body (a description with which I agree since it was heard in the US Supreme Court), although all three are characterized as such in the Lead). If I understand precedent correctly, either the decision has to be of binding nature based on the court which rules on it, or it is a decision on which numerous or significant subsequent case decisions are based. For whatever reason, the other editor sees no need to address the impact the decisions of those three cases (reliably sourced, of course).

My knowledge of WP legal articles is nil, but can the Lead statement "Several legal decisions have set contractual law precedents in regards to long-arm statutes, the limitations of franchise agreements, and ethical business practices; many of these decisions have helped define general business dealings that continue to shape the entire marketplace." be made without the observations of legal scholars or experts? Isn't this OR? Since I'm unfamiliar with this territory, would someone take a look at the article and provide guidance, please? If I'm off-base, fine, but I'm worried about the article's quality, especially since it is undergoing GAN review. A good place to start is here. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help save Litigation involving Tesco

Can interested people please go and say something against deleting this page here? As a lawyer I think each case should have an article, and this is a convenient grouping with some valuable information. Wikidea 22:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Société à responsabilité limitée - Assistance Required

This is a call out for an expert on French corporate law: please take a look at this article. It appears to have been translated from French, and is in dire need of attention from an expert. I have tagged it for expert assistance. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to rename "Pedra Branca dispute"

There is a discussion on whether to rename "Pedra Branca dispute" as "Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia v. Singapore)", as this is the official name of the International Court of Justice case: see "List of International Court of Justice cases". Your comments on the article's talk page are welcome. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Would like to get involved

Hi guys, I would like to get involved with this project; my specialisms are in private/contract law. Please tell me how I can be of help.(Willrgby (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

It would be really helpful if you could sign up for the proposed English law wikiproject here which needs members and would help develop the English law corpus on wikipedia. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Account of profits

Hi everyone, I started an article on the equitable remedy of account of profits (or accounting for profits, if you prefer). I ask anyone with any deeper knowledge of the law of remedies to please expand it. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] manrent

Should I consider putting the new article entitled "manrent" under WikiProject Law (as well as Scottish clans)? Czar Brodie (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fair use review

There is currently a discussion of the possible removal of Wikipedia:fair use review. Please feel free to join the discussion at MFD/Wikipedia:Fair use review, or, if you have a professional level of knowledge regarding fair use itself, then please have a look at the backlog. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1517 articles assigned to this project, or 24.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] selective publication?

Anybody with knowledge of how courts decide which cases to publish, please come and collaborate on the new stub, selective publication. Thank you. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist    10:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article for Bilateral Contract

Does the following comprise a reasonable case to be made for having a separate article for bilateral contract instead of a sub section of Contract? When working on articles for various types of standardised bilateral contracts (e.g. Credit derivative), it would help to have a separate article so that the internal link doesn't have to point to a subsection which is likely to be renamed, moved, etc. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

The article entitled Timeline of riots and civil unrest in Calgary, Alberta is in the midst of an AfD. • Freechild'sup? 06:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights

I think that WikiProject Animal rights should be considered a descendant project, rather than a "related" WikiProject. Any objections? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split of "Legal occupations"

The category Legal occupations is a disaster in so many ways. It requires diffusion, obviously, but, upon further examination, I discovered a much more organised solution. I've proposed splitting the category of "Legal occupations" (both categories also being diffused, of course). I'm going through an informal proposal process instead of just doing it straight away because it will be a lot of work and time wasted if there are strong objections or excellent reasons against this being done. Please read the details at its talk page and comment! —Skittleys (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of assessment

Hello, I want to get into assessing some of these unassessed WPLaw articles but I noticed that there are no listed assessment parameters specific to this WikiProject. I do some assessment in WikiProject Tax where there are listed guidelines for assessing the class and priority/importance of articles specific to that wikiproject, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Assessment. I suppose something similar could be done here, particularly for dealing with laws no longer in force, how to treat esoteric topics, assessing court decisions, laws limited to one country or state within a country, etc. EECavazos (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Assessment when I was about to suggest its creation. Since it exists some of my comment above is a bit absolete. However, I noticed that the assessment page is "temporarily closed" which suggests that I should move on to that page and leave my comments in that talk page. EECavazos (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States nearing GA status

I could use a few eyes and maybe some additional facts and sources in Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States to fulfill the requests of the Good Article review at Talk:Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States/GA1. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help me put articles on the proper SCOTUS case lists! Please!!!

(Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases)

Hi everyone, I made up a list of of U.S. Supreme Court case articles which have not yet been added one of the appropriate Lists of United States Supreme Court cases.

The list is located at User:Eastlaw/pagelist. I have, in the past, added a whole bunch of articles to the lists, but this is more work than one person can do by him/herself. If everyone could do just a few cases (or even just one or two) each day, we could eliminate a lot of the articles on this list.

Likewise, if anyone here stumbles upon an article which is not on the appropriate list, but isn't listed on my page either, please add it to my page (or just list it on the appropriate case list). Thanks. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burger King legal issues

This article is currently is a Feature Article candidate and I would like some help insuring that the article is factually correct.

I need some help over at Burger King legal issues with two cases:

• Burger King v. Rudzewicz (471 U.S. 462)
  • Several commentators have had an issue with citation #66 and I need something to replace it. If some one could assist that would be very helpful.

• Burger King of Florida, Inc. v. Hoots (403 F.2d 904)

If someone could help insure that I have all the information correct or could add something else that would improve these two cases I would be grateful.

Thank You, Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Learned Hand peer review

user:Slp1 and I have put Learned Hand up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. This was the article planned by a group of Wikipedians as a tribute to NewYorkBrad because, on leaving, he expressed regret that he couldn't now fulfill his plan to bring this article to FA. We would very much appreciate reviews from those with legal knowledge, particularly with knowledge of American law, because neither of us are legal experts, nor indeed are we American (British and Canadian). It would be useful if we could iron out any legal imprecisions (there are bound to be some, though we have tried our best) before we go to FAC. Many thanks in advance to anyone who can help us with a review. qp10qp (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete list of U.S. federal legislation

The current List of United States federal legislation article is woefully inadequate. For one thing, it is nowhere near complete. For another thing, people have been removing the names of legislation simply because they do not have article yet. I propose creating a complete list of federal legislation (red links and all) something akin to the List of United States Supreme Court cases. Doing so will serve as an impetus to the creation of new, important, legally-oriented articles.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real estate contract page merge

I think we should merge the page "land contract" into the article on real estate contracts, but the land contracts page doesn't say much about the nature and terms of the contract itself, just about financing and payments (and it doesn't really say much anyway). Any suggestions about this? --Eastlaw (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are journalists and newseditors reliable sources on law?

There is a dispute in Illegal immigration to the United States regarding whether journalists and news editors are reliable sources on law. Specifically, the law (title 8) is quoted in the article. An editor has found some journalists and news editors who claim that the law doesn't state what it clearly states. It has been argued that journalists and news editors aren't experts in the law and should not be treated as reliable sources. Outside input is appreciated.-66.213.90.2 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, otherwise they'd have to be experts on everything they report, from cold fusion to creationism to South Park, and that cannot be possible. --Rodhullandemu 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The dispute regards sources to substantiate whether illegal immigration to the United States is a crime, were "illegal immigration" per the article's introduction refers to residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration law. The sources in dispute includes the Executive Editor and Executive News Editor of Seattle Times writing in a column about the paper's official policy on immigration coverage that "Illegal immigration is not a crime, but rather a civil infraction",[1] and furthermore a prominent former U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York going on the record stating that illegal immigration is not a crime, sourced to Associated Press.[2] The discussion also brought up a 2006 Congressional Research Service report for the United States Congress: Immigration Enforcement Within the United States, which says Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. The opposing view that these "claim that the law doesn't state what it clearly states" is based on wikipedia editors personal interpretations of the US code. Elsewhere in the article an editor insists on including that "the United States code identifies illegal immigration as both a criminal and civil offense", with as primary source a section of the code about illegal entry. Is wikipedia editors own interpretation of the code more reliable than these other sources on this matter of law? Terjen (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It really seems to me that a news article quoting a newspaper editor talking about the (non-)criminality of illegal immigration (or on any other legal topic) is utterly worthless as a source. The news story quoting Rudy Giuliani (who was at one time a U.S. Attorney) is possibly more useful, though it still seems weak to me and really needs additional sources agreeing with it.

The Congressional Research Service report is, I believe, a good source which might be enough to use all by itself to support the "civil, not criminal" assertion. However, since this source says that "being illegally present in the U.S." (boldface mine) has never been a criminal violation of the law, it's still possible in my mind that there might be a distinction being drawn in the law between the act of entering the US illegally and the act of remaining in the US illegally, and that perhaps one of these is a criminal issue while the other is not, and this possible distinction needs to be dealt with carefully. Richwales (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Seattle Times source was not a "news article", but a column written by the Executive Editor on the paper's official policy on immigration coverage. This is the editors of the largest daily newspaper in the state of Washington putting their reputation on the line. It is reasonable to assume that the words were carefully chosen and facts checked. Terjen (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Still not good enough, in my opinion. The best conclusion I believe we can draw from the Seattle Times column is that the staff of the Seattle Times believe illegal immigration is a civil infraction and not a crime. If the executive editor were an immigration lawyer, that might possibly make a difference. In any case, this sort of "source" is sufficiently likely to be questionable that we really should do a better job of finding some solid sources. For example, can we find any of the sources which the Seattle Times executive editor and his staff used to bring them to their conclusion? Richwales (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The concern about the cited sources seems to be based on a belief that the claim they substantiate is false. The original posting reads An editor has found some journalists and news editors who claim that the law doesn't state what it clearly states. Although the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, I think we can safely aim higher in this case. Let's take a step back to consider whether it is factual that illegal immigration - residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration law - is not a crime but a civil infraction. When that has been determined, we can eventually come back to the available sources to consider which ones best substantiate the claim. Terjen (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What?? You point out that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and then in the same post argue that before we decide whether a reference is a reliable source, we should decide whether it is telling the truth - without resorting to verifiability?-198.97.67.59 (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that "verifiability, not truth" does not mean "it doesn't matter whether it's true as long as we can cite a source" — it means "it's not good enough that it's true if we can't cite a source". I don't believe we need, in general, to make an exhaustive, independent effort to confirm whether what a reliable-looking source says is correct or not before using the source. I do believe that if we happen to have reasonable cause to question the accuracy of a claim in a source, we can't simply repeat the claim (backed by that source) and present it as a confirmed fact; rather, we need to look for additional sources and/or moderate what we say in the article. If those with more experience editing Wikipedia feel I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting this concept, I would of course welcome an explanation of where and how I'm confused.

In the specific case at hand, it appears to me that we do have reason to believe that at least some instances of unlawful entry and/or presence in the US constitute an actual criminal offense, and also reason to believe that at least some such situations may not be crimes but are merely less serious civil infractions. Our confusion may be happening because we're assuming it's got to be one or the other, and/or because some of our sources are confused by assuming it's one or the other. It seems to me like we need to continue looking for reliable sources, and in the meantime, possibly look for a way to reword the affected text of the article so as not to say either that illegal immigration/presence is a "crime" or that it is not, at least not until we have more reliable sources to cite. Richwales (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason these sources are debated is because one or more editors believe they claim that the law doesn't state what it clearly states. According to wikipedia policy,Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and if the claim that illegal immigration is not a crime but a civil infraction is exceptional, it is reasonable to demand exceptional sources. So let's consider whether it really is an extraordinary claim. Terjen (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is. Since I believe the "prevailing view within the relevant community" (see WP:REDFLAG) is that something called "illegal" is, by ordinary definition of the word, a crime, I would view a claim that "illegal immigration is not a crime" as (at least arguably) self-contradictory — hence, an extraordinary claim, and thus one for which we have a right and a responsibility to expect more and/or better sources. Richwales (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Richwales, there are thousands and thousands of anonymous editors working on Wikipedia from all over the world, all of whom have their own ideas on what is "true" and not everyone agrees as to what is "true". -That's- why verifiability, not truth is so important - because "what is verifiable" can be answered objectively whereas "what is true" cannot be. An editor can't honestly argue about whether a source says something (unless the meaning is hard to decipher), though they can certainly argue about what is true. Verifiability, not truth, is what keeps us academically honest. It doesn't matter whether something is true, it only matters what is verifiable (though the question of reliable sources does pop up).

I also find it curious that Terjen has argued that we should determine whether something is true (without sources for verifiability) and whether or not a claim is exceptional (though that claim directly contradicts avaiable reliable sources), but he has, so far, not done what Wikipedia tells us to do - provide reliable sources to verify his claim. How much effort are we to spend on trying to find ways around policies instead of just adhering to those policies?-198.97.67.58 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think the "anonymous editor" and I are really that far apart on this. What I (perhaps clumsily) tried to express earlier is, I think, adequately covered by the verifiability policy — with particular attention being given to what the "Sources" section says about evaluating the reliability of a source — and recognizing (as stated in the "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" section) that if a claim appears to fall well outside accepted mainstream thought, it's that much more important to find the best possible sources for that claim.

"Verifiability" does not simply mean finding a source (any source at all) that says something; and "verifiability, not truth" does not mean we can or should just go ahead and include any and every statement for which some source, without regard for its reliability, happens to show up. But I'm assuming (or at least hoping) that the "anonymous editor" isn't actually proposing these interpretations; if, by chance, he/she is, then I'll have to stand by my interpretation of "verifiability" and respectfully disagree with his/her interpretation.

In this particular case, as I said earlier, I do currently believe that a claim that "illegal immigration is not a crime" is an exceptional claim, for which we have a reasonable right and obligation to expect highly reliable sources. Richwales (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An additional thought — although "what is verifiable" is a more practical and useful standard for our purposes than "what is true", I would not go so far as to say that "what is verifiable" can always be answered objectively, because there may still be plenty of room for honest differences of opinion regarding the reliability and quality of any given source. Richwales (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest editors reading this discussion take a few minutes to look up relevant reliable sources themselves. That way, it will quickly be evident that a wide range of reliable sources support that illegal immigration - residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration law - is not a crime but a civil infraction, and that I am not just cherry-picking ignoring contradictory evidence. The anonymous editor sometimes using the handle 198.97.67.58 has not provided any reliable secondary sources to support that residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration law is a crime, but is instead basing the opposition on original research in interpreting the US code. Congressman Tom Tancredo, a strong opponent of illegal immigration, wrote in USA Today: illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction. The House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts.[3] David Martin, professor of law at the University of Virginia and formerly general counsel at the federal agency now known as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told NPR: Living in the United States illegally -- either by sneaking in or by overstaying a visa -- is a violation under the civil code, not the criminal code.[4] Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide reliable sources that contradict these? Terjen (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I find myself wondering if that blog understands what it's discussing. It says "Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction." and continues with a nonsequitor "he House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts." It seems to be equating "non-felony" with "non-criminal," maybe missing that misdemeanors are crimes, too.

I don't know immigration law beyond the minimum I needed to get my wife a green card and citizenship, so I don't opine on the actual issue of whether illegal presence is itself a crime (and my opinion wouldn't matter if I had one), but I wonder if much of this discussion in the secondary sources is also missing the distinction, i.e., that there are crimes that are not felonies. Certainly when the criminal infringement provisions in the US copyright statute were revised (mid- to late-1990s), there was a very similar confusion, with many commentators incorrectly stating that this was making certain offenses a crime for the first time; it didn't, it made them felonies for the first time.

This suggest that some of these sources need to be carefully considered before deeming them to be reliable sources (which blogs ordinarily are not, anyway). TJRC (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What blog? And some blogs can be reliable sources, depending on who the author is and how its published (Huffington Post, for instance, is cited in various places). Avruch ^T 23:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The USA Today blog cited above: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/03/opposing_view_m.html I see the basis for the confusion, it was cited as being USA Today, but it's a columnist's blog, not USA Today itself. 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not cited as being USA Today. It said: Congressman Tom Tancredo, a strong opponent of illegal immigration, wrote in USA Today... I don't see a reason for the confusion as it was clearly attributed to a congressman, at the time the chairman of the congressional immigration reform caucus. Terjen (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We're really down to the nits now, but I read a statement with "wrote in USA Today..." as citing the referred-to source as being USA Today. TJRC (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that "crime" and "violation of the law" are not the same. Many violations of the law, but not all, are related to criminal laws. The difference is in the penalties - criminal violations of the law can draw prison sentences, while civil violations typically draw fines. When the Congressman refers to making it a felony, doing that would clearly move the immigration violation into the realm of criminal law - there is no civil felony, that I'm aware of. As to the issue - there are sources, generally believed to be reliable, which claim a certain thing to be true. Since its referenced, not unreferenced, it ought to stay in the article until contradictory references of equal or greater weight are found. And at that point, Wikipedia should describe the discrepancy rather than make a categorical statement either way. Avruch ^T 23:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the distinction between "crime" and "violation of the law" . I'm suggesting that some of these commentators may be confusing the distinction between "crime" and "violation of the law" with the distinction between "felony" and "violation of the law." TJRC (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The crucial distinction is between "crimes" and "civil infractions". Terjen (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'm suggesting that the commentators are confusing that crucial distinction with a different distinction, the distinction between "felonies" and "civil infractions." Am I really being that unclear? TJRC (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding that a Civil Infraction is a crime? I suspect that the commentators, all experienced in legal issues related to immigration, have it right. Terjen (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not my misunderstanding. Let me try this one more time, and then I will give up. There are civil infractions, and there are crimes. These are two different things. Within the class of "crimes," there are two types of crimes: misdemeanors and felonies.

With me so far? Good.

Occasionally, legislation is introduced that changes acts that would have previously been misdemeanors into felonies. Let's be clear here: the act was a crime in either case; it had been a misdemeanor, but under the new legislation would become a felony. But a crime, in either case.

Now, in discussing proposed changes like this, commentators often see the true fact "Act X is now a felony" and confuse it with the false statement "Act X, which was not previously a crime, is now a crime." That is, they confuse making an act into a felony with making an act into a crime. As I said, I saw this error over and over and over and over when the Copyright statute was modified to make acts that had previously been misdemeanors (but still crimes) into felonies (another species of crime). I saw many articles in mainstream media that reported that it was making a certain act of infringement that had not been a crime into a crime. Those statements were in error. In fact, the legislation was making a certain act that had not been a felony into a felony. But the journalist was treating "felony" and "crime" as synonymous, which they are not.

Based on some of the commentary here, I think some of the journalists (and even the Congressman posting to the USA Today blog) may be making the same mistake. It's perhaps subtle,and the fact that I've had to make several posts to explain it suggests that its' not so easily grasped. The example right at hand is the one quoted in the USA Today Blog:

Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction. The House Judiciary Committee voted to make it a felony but then was counseled that millions of new felons could clog our courts.

The first sentence is about a crime-civil infraction distinction (i.e., criminalization); but the second is about a different thing: felonization. This really sounds like the Congressman is making the same error being discussed here, treating them as though they are the same thing. And suggests why a journalist discussing the law may not be a reliable source for the interpretation he's putting forward.

I'm done now. If I'm still not clear, you're on your own.TJRC (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, at this point, what you are arguing. The point is that the particular violation of the law in question (coming to or being inside the United States without a valid visa, legal residency, citizenship, tec.) is not a criminal violation of the law, and thus not a crime. Its a civil violation of the law, subject to civil penalties (fines and deportation). Avruch ^T 00:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But the commentators seem unclear on the difference between a crime and a felony, suggesting that they are not reliable sources for the distinction for which they are being cited. TJRC (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Avruch wrote: As to the issue - there are sources, generally believed to be reliable, which claim a certain thing to be true. Since its referenced, not unreferenced, it ought to stay in the article until contradictory references of equal or greater weight are found. And at that point, Wikipedia should describe the discrepancy rather than make a categorical statement either way. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Anybody that disagree? Terjen (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that before we go any further, we need to identify reliable sources on law which state that illegal immigration (whether we're talking about EWI, visa overstays or whaver) isn't a crime. Journalists and news editors aren't reliable sources on the law. An advertisement by a guy running for POTUS attempting to appeal to Hispanics is no more a reliable source on law than 1970s cigarette ads are reliable sources on good health.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If we define illegal immigration to include whatever, then it could certainly be a crime. But it specifically refers to residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration laws. David Martin, professor of law at the University of Virginia and formerly general counsel at the federal agency now known as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told NPR: Living in the United States illegally -- either by sneaking in or by overstaying a visa -- is a violation under the civil code, not the criminal code.[5] Despite repeated requests, you have not provided any reliable sources contradicting that it is not a crime but a civil infraction. The journalists and newspaper sources writing that illegal immigration is not a crime are merely reporting a well established legal fact. All the provided referenced sources have shown to be more reliable than wikipedia editors interpreting the immigration law for themselves, demonstrating why the project frown upon original research. Terjen (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your problem here is an overly-restrictive definition of "illegal immigration." The source TJRC discusses below says that "the illegal entry of aliens" is a crime, and I believe common usage would refer to aliens illegally entering the country (or at least most such aliens) as "illegal immigrants." There are plenty of news articles, etc. referring to aliens illegally entering the country as "illegal immigrants" even if they are caught in the process of illegally entering and have not yet had a chance to set up illegal (as a civil infraction) residence in the United States. PubliusFL (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration and illegal entry are two different concepts, and should not be confounded. A non-national person can enter illegally without immigrating illegally (e.g. taking an unauthorized day trip across the border) or immigrate illegally without having entered illegally (e.g by settling after overstaying a visa). Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States#Not synonymous with illegal entry discusses the point that illegal immigration is not synonymous with illegal entry, and I suggest eventual follow-ups are posted over there. Terjen (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said otherwise. "Illegal immigration" and "illegal entry" significantly overlap, but each covers some territory that the other doesn't. Not all illegal entry (which is criminal) is illegal immigration, but much is. And vice versa. PubliusFL (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is in our place to redefine illegal immigration to make it into a crime. We can safely stick to considering whether residing in the U.S. in violation of immigration law is a crime or a civil infraction, and leave the discussion about the definition of the term to Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States. Terjen (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a strawman. I'm not suggesting that we "redefine illegal immigration to make it into a crime." I'm questioning whether the definition you've been using is accurate and adequate. I have made the same point on Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States. PubliusFL (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition of Illegal immigration as taking residence in the U.S. in violation of immigration law is from the Illegal immigration to the United States entry itself. Earlier, long standing versions used similar language. Terjen (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We're now getting into where editors are now cutting and pasting their previous comments, which is a definite sign we're in an infinite loop here.

Terjen posted a pretty good reference, let me make it more explicit here: Immigration Enforcement Within the United States, Congressional Research Service report for Congress, Order Code RL33351 (April 6, 2006): [6]. That source says:

Immigration enforcement is the regulation of those who violate provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This includes violations of the civil provisions of the INA (e.g., aliens who enter without inspection or violate the conditions of their admittance),⁹ as well as U.S. citizens or aliens who violate the criminal provisions of the INA (e.g., marriage fraud or alien smuggling). [page 10 in the PDF file]

It later says:

The INA [the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is online at the USCIS site here] includes both criminal and civil components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil violations (e.g., lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate administrative system in the Department of Justice).³² Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings.³³ For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor’s visa expires or if his student status changes. Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens (INA §274), the illegal entry of aliens (INA §275),