 | This subject is featured in the Outline of law, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia. | | This page is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This project page is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |  Project | This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. | | | | [edit] UK case law priorities Hi there, I was wondering who else is actively working on UK case law articles? Got a few questions to ask on them. Thanks. RichsLaw (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC) - That'd be me, User:Wikidea and currently User:TachyonJack in some areas. Ironholds (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- I knew I'd forgotten something. When citing cases in any legal article or work, one would obviously use a correct case citation, so that any quoted judgment or information can be accurately sourced. Equally, a citation can often help find the correct appeal or stage of a case. When writing for Wikipedia, I would think that a correct citation is necessary, but I couldn't find precise consensus, and a discussion on my talk page indicated that the matter is not clear. Is there guidelines on citing cases? Wikipedia isn't written for legal experts, so I wonder on what's correct. Thanks. RichsLaw (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- When you mean "correct case citation" you mean citing particular bits of a judgement, say, or the initial citation (as in Williams v Roffey [1990] 1 QB 1 or whatever) ? Ironholds (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The case citation, yes. RichsLaw (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Standard practice in the English ones I've seen is to include the case citation under OSCOLA standards. If you look at Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, for example, you'll see the format. Ironholds (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not very sure whether the categories I put in the article are correct. By the way, the article is rather NPOV, but I don't know how to improve it. Vltava 68 06:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC) - I have tagged it for speedy deletion as an unsourced article of a non-notable living person in the news for one event. BencherliteTalk 07:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Vltava :). Ironholds (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, on the categories - there's no need to put an article in category:Murderers of children and Category:American murderers of children, just in the latter (since it's a sub-category of the former). And you perhaps should have added Category:Living people, because this then helps biography-watchers keep an eye on it and brings up a special "editnotice". BencherliteTalk 07:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If it's been deleted, why's the talk page still there? Vltava 68 02:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] proposed sub-projects I only just discovered that WikiProjects also support "subprojects" (e.g. Portal:U.S._Roads, Template:Law_projects). Between now and August, when school resumes, I'm thinking of starting up some sub-projects here -- please let me know if you think these would be good ideas: - JD Curriculum, to tag articles that feature in the JD Curriculum, and improve these articles so that they incorporate insights from hornbooks, treatises, casebooks, etc. -- so that ultimately, Wikipedia will be a free online hornbook.
-
- A subproject of this, 1L curriculum. Same concept, but important to keep distinct, because 1Ls are so nervous -- they're all looking for secret studying tricks, so this would become popular faster than "JD Curriculum".
- American jurisdictions. Dedicated to creating subpages of each area of law dedicated to each American jurisdiction -- (this will be very beneficial for non-Americans who are sick of US-centric articles!) -- so, e.g., "discrimination (law)" will link to a pages "discrimination (United States law)" & "discrimination (United Kingdom law)"; the former will link to a page entitled "Title VII", which will link to "Title VII (First Circuit)", "Title VII (Second Circuit)", etc. Likewise, common-law topics will include links e.g. "Negligence (Florida)" etc. (These links will be listed as they are in senate and judicial review.
-
- Eventually, lawyers and bar-studiers in each jurisdiction would create subprojects for each American jurisdiction -- Florida law, Second Circuit law etc.
Thoughts? Agradman talk/contribs 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC) - I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself here. Wikipedia has a very bad coverage of law and legal articles, and not that many people interested in doing much about it. Subprojects need a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of editors to get going, and while we have enough of the former we don't have enough of the latter. The method I'm using to improve coverage is this: get an area of law up to GA. English contract law is my current focus - GA for those shouldn't be too hard. Once I'm done with that, English criminal law. Then tort. And so on. Rather than creating elaborate frameworks for theoretical expansions, start the expansions and then see if such a framework can be sustained, or if it is even needed. Ironholds (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Morse v. Frederick - Good article review If any one is interested, Morse v. Frederick is currently undergoing a Good article review. Feel free to contribute to the article in any way possible to bring it up to Good status. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC) - oh cool. I'll take a look at it tonight. Agradman talk/contribs 23:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure you guys were aware that last week-ish, User:Foofighter20x upgraded the Template:Ussc template, so that now when you specify the pincite, it will take you directly to the page in the case. (only justia and findlaw support this feature). Example: {{ussc|487|654|1988|pin=675}} produces 487 U.S. 654, 675 (1988).
Agradman talk/contribs 23:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] please spread the word -- starting a new club I'm planning to start a "student wikipedia-hornbook editors" club at my law school this fall. Even if you're not personally interested in participating, I'd like to ask for help in connecting with other law wikipedians who might be -- i.e., who would be willing to start chapters of this club at their own law schools. With our free access to Lexis & Westlaw, we're in a unique position to be doing this work -- and the more schools we get involved, the easier it will be for each. Thanks. Agradman talk/contribs 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC) wondering if you could look at my two proposals at the bottom of Talk:Roe v Wade. I've proposed a major overhaul of the lead, because (much to my horror) it's been wrong about the law; I've also proposed a new section, ==Synopsis==, which has not been looked upon kindly by the first administrator who stumbled across it. Thanks. Agradman talk/contribs 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Public domain/free content We need to clarify the definitions and acceptable purposes of public domain/free content here. Thanks for your assistance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Wikipeida policies and guidelines Becuase Wikipedia policies and guidelines are intended to rule some practices and organize the wiki community, to stop unfairness, etc. they reflect some of the principles law have in society. I think most of rules called policies and guidelines are amatеure and rearly enforce some real need advisatory guidelines and policies. However Wikipedia have expanded and it servces real deal reference site now. Since it is not done by a few but by many and it is governed by editors i think we need and should imply better lawful notions that those of use. For example there is a harassment policy Wikipedia:Harassment but there was not a discrimination one. I made a proposal for making such Wikipedia:Discrimination. Please help wikipedia to have better guidelines becuase it has became too unfair, not clean, not organized, promoting torment by some editors on other etc. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC) - Wikiproject law is for those interested in writing articles about the law, not writing and enforcing wiki-wide policy. Ironholds (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] RECRUITING ASSISTANCE for new taskforce(s) for American law students I am recruiting persons to help me build up one or two new "task forces" under WP:LAW. The task forces would be designed to make WP:LAW more inviting to (American) law students; depending on your feedback, the name(s) would be "JD Curriculum" (or "1L Curriculum" & "JD upperclass curriculum") (or "Student hornbook editors"). Earlier I contemplated a new Wikiproject, but I agree with people who feel this isn't the optimal choice. However, people at the the NYC Wiki-Conference 2009 suggested the "task force" model (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces); the people at the WP:WikiProject Council gave me the following explanation: | “ | The real difference between a fully independent WikiProject and a task force (or a WikiProject that functions as a task force) ... is that a task force uses the parent project's technical and procedural infrastructure (internal templates, review processes, open task listings, bots, and so forth) rather than maintaining its own. This allows the task force to focus more on direct article writing, with the responsibility for maintaining the internal structures being centralized in the parent project, and the workload for doing so being reduced by eliminating redundancy between the parent project's task forces. | ” | | “ | ... They also help avoid talk page clutter by using a single banner (the parent one). | ” | I promise to be wholeheartedly committed to this project, and will be especially aggressive in attracting new non-Wikipedians. My official real-world responsibility, as an "executive committee" member of student government at my school, is to find ways to improve student collaboration. So, I am going to be starting a club at my law school, "student Wikipedia hornbook editors," whose purpose will be to draw students to this taskforce; I will also be encouraging other schools to start clubs like this. The club chapters all around the country would use the task force as their homepage. Persons at the WikiProject Council are offering to help, but first they would like some indication that at least five members of WP:LAW agree that this is a worthwhile project. Please let me know if you are one of them, so I can get the go-ahead from the WikiProject Council people. Thanks, Agradman talk/contribs 06:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) - I agree it is a worthwhile project, and would be happy to support such a thing in an organisational capacity, although not in an editing one (your law is all confusing to me :P). I would simply suggest you stick to the Wikipedia standard page layout rather than writing it like an actual homebook. Any attempt to attract potential Wikipedians would be brilliant, since law as an area is covered in depressingly little detail. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Fear not -- all formatting will comply with WP:LAW consensus -- this is just a recruitment, mission-building, and socializing tool. Agradman talk/contribs 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- I more meant the MOS, but meh :P. Sounds good to me - as I said, anything I can do to help on the organisational side, let me know. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Request for help Hello everyone! I'm a postgraduate law student and I'm writing my thesis having to do (amongst others) with international tourism organisations. I am currently doing some research on the World Tourism Organization, emphasizing on legal matters and more specifically international law. Unfortunately, I cannot find adequate bibliography, either on-line or hard-copy. Has anyone came over something that could be of help? Any books, sites, links etc? Thank you in advance! I'd prefer if you answered on my talkpage but I'll watch this page too, just in case. (I placed the same comment on wikiproject tourism talkpage). Pel thal (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC) - We're not really here to help you on that - we're for improving law articles, not helping students. You might want to ask over at the reference desk. Still, I'll do what I can - can you set out exactly what you're looking for? books on international law or on the WTO? Ironholds (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I know that wikiproject law is not about helping students etc (wikiproject Greece that I'm a member of is also focusing on improving articles...), you are completely right and I know I'm using up the talkpage's space with an irrelevant issue. That is why I'm thankful for anyone's help. To be more specific, I'm looking for books on the World Tourism Organization that focus on the way it works, its members, legal issues arising from its function that could be of significance for international law. Most of the books on the market deal with tourism marketing issues and the WTO's role for e.g. developping countries etc. Thank you once more and pardon me for the "abusive" use of the talkpage... Pel thal (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there's likely to be a book on that sort of thing, at least not that I know of. If you're searching for a book you should ask at the reference desk - more people look at that than at this talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice! Maybe when I've finished writing my thesis, I could help out with wikiproject law. Cheers! Pel thal (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reevaluation of National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts importance This shows that the creator of the page added the two project banners and stated it as "mid importance". The creator of a page is not unbiased in determining such. Can someone please re-evaluate the importance? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC) - Will redefine once the AfD is done. Ironholds (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] request for feedback: WP:Hornbook, the new taskforce for JD students I've created a "beta version" of my proposed task force, "JD curriculum task force," which will be attached to WP:LAW. It's accessible at WP:Hornbook. I'm also planning to paste the text of this invitation into the talk pages of people who have identified themselves via userbox as law students or with WP:Law. Before I do so, I'd like your feedback. Agradman talk/contribs 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] May I invite someone to add "task force" infrastructure to our Wikiproject? Kirill [talk] [pf] provided me with the basic template that I used to construct this draft task force page, and has been guiding me through the process. On my latest request for feedback, he made the following comment: | “ | The basic template for the task force page is pretty rough ... You might consider asking at WP:LAW whether the project would like to have some more sophisticated infrastructure in place; if there's interest, I can put together a list of possible features for the project to consider. | ” | May I invite him in? :) Agradman talk/contribs 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC) So ... umm ... is this what passes for a Quorum at this time of year (i.e. immediately after the bar exam)? I guess I'll wait another day and then invite Kirill to present his wares. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC) - I'd say go for it with what we've got here. Small supports, but we're a small project, and I don't note any opposes either. Ironholds (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Possible infrastructure improvements Okay, since there seems to be some interest, here's a list of infrastructure improvements that I think could be made, listed roughly in order of increasing complexity. - The main project page is, in my opinion, too cluttered at the moment. I suggest switching to a tabbed layout, similar to what WP:MILHIST looks like. Nominally, you'd have a main tab (containing the scope, a structure overview, and a showcase), an open task tab (containing both the open task list and the article alerts listing), and department tabs (assessment, review, etc.).
-
-
- Strong Support. The tabbed layout at WP:MILHIST has so many arguments in its favor. It scales well; it organizes the content; it has been tried-and-tested at many wikiprojects. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
-
- Support, the milhist layout is an excellent example. Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Instead of the current ad-hoc lists of links, I suggest creating a standardized navigation template that will link to all of the significant pages within the project, and be placed at the top of each of those pages.
-
-
- The default open task listing should be replaced with a custom-built one for the project; in particular, it's very useful to link to any open reviews of project articles, since that's a key area where greater participation is needed. A similar, standardized template should be deployed for each of the project's task forces
-
-
- The assessment system should, I think, be upgraded to use the B-Class checklist approach (in other words, the automatic assessment of articles as B-Class based on a set of checklist parameters in the project banner). These parameters can then be automatically used to generate categories indicating the areas in which any article needs work; see Category:Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation for an example.
-
-
- neutral ... because assessment is something I have never participated in -- I don't feel qualified to express an opinion. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
- Support, I've been involved with assessments before as part of my work starting off Wikiproject Awards and Medals. Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- A project review department should be created, perhaps initially only transcluding copies of external reviews if there's insufficient interest or manpower to maintain internal review processes.
-
-
- In the longer term, and particularly once this infrastructure is in place, the various child projects should be invited to become task forces of WP:LAW, thus gaining transparent access to the fully developed infrastructure. In particular, once their banners are integrated into the main one for this project, we can automatically generate all the assessment and task categories for them based on the single set of template parameters used by the core project.
-
-
- Strong support. I have advocated this for a long time. I wouldn't impose this on anyone, but I think most of our wikiprojects would elect this if they understood the advantages. Ironholds and I have expressed the advantages of creating a task force for WP:MOSLAW, and this articulates well with that proposal. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
-
- I'm not sure that splitting the MOS work into a task force is necessarily the most effective approach. For anything related to formal guidelines, maximizing participation in discussions is important, and the core project talk page usually has significantly more traffic than any task force's; that's why, for example, MOS discussions take place directly on the main project talk page in MilHist. An informal grouping of editors working on the MOS subpage may work, but I would recommend against creating a formal task force for it, since you'd now be splitting discussions even further (among the project talk page, the task force talk page, and the MOS talk page).
- Part of the solution, in any case, will be more prominent links to the MOS page from the project's various pages.
- Another possibility you might want to consider (although I'm uncertain of how it might be accomplished in practice) would be redirecting the MOS subpage's talk page to the project's main talk page, to centralize discussions and reduce the splintering of threads between multiple talk pages. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- hmmmm. Although I do think in the long term a WP:MOSLAW task force is the best solution, I'll postpone that conversation for another day and another thread. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
- I could do that - will do when I get back from holiday. Internet access is on a 14-inch screen in the cocktail bar across the road (for anyone visiting Edinburgh, Dragonfly in Grassmarket does a brilliant Jim & Apple). Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- In the even longer term, I might suggest looking at designating a group of project coordinators to handle maintaining the infrastructure on a day-to-day basis; see WP:MHCOORD for an example.
-
-
- Neutral. I'm glad that this proposal is "long term". Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
- Strong support as a long, long term prospect. We don't really have the interest to necessitate such a thing. I'm going to look at a string of possibilities for filling out the new template, whatever that may be, and attracting an interest in WP:LAW and Wikipedia generally from outside this. Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Any comments and suggestions would be very appreciated. In particular, I'd be interested to know which of these proposals are of interest to the project so that I can prepare a more detailed implementation plan for them. Kirill [talk] [pf] 18:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] Implementing infrastructure improvements I've started working on a new page layout and navigation template (items #1 and #2 above) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/New layout. The work obviously isn't done yet, but any comments would be appreciated. In particular, a couple of things to which the project's members ought to give some thought: - I've used, insofar as possible, the existing color scheme; but, at least in my view, it's a bit too garish, particularly in the navigation template. Does the project want to continue using an all-blue scheme, or are there other colors people would prefer?
- Is an explicit "Goals" section desirable? It's pretty commonplace among other projects, but there's no requirement to have one. The actual content needs to be written if such a section is needed.
- The "Scope" section could stand to be rewritten; at the moment, it doesn't flow very smoothly, and the reference to the Philosophy WikiProject seems quite out of place.
Feedback on these issues, or on any other areas, is very welcome. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC) -
- We can rewrite the "scope" section. What does the "goals" section normally contain, specific medium- to long-term desires, such as "get all articles on aspects of English contract law to GA"? I've got no problem with changing the bright blue colour scheme to something lighter; any suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Most projects I've seen tend to post fairly long-term (and sometimes rather grandiose) goals; see, for example, the goals listed on WP:MILHIST. I would say that specific article counts, etc. are probably best presented as something other than the overall goals—otherwise, newcomers with no interest in, say, English contract law will wonder if the project really covers their areas of interest—but it's really up to you. Kirill [talk] [pf] 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Kirill, your work is always fabulous and I trust your judgment. Ironholds ditto. My first day of classes is Tuesday so I can't really be active in this redesign for a few weeks, but please forge ahead without me and I'll try to participate from the sidelines. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Lawyer referral service Would someone please check Lawyer referral service and comment here or on its talk page about whether the list of "me too" links should be eliminated? It might be best to just delete all the links and put a note on the (nonexistent) talk page that only links complying with WP:EL should be added. The American Bar Association link looks ok, but even that is not terribly helpful (I'm sure Google could locate it or similar for anyone interested). Any thoughts on the article (it has no refs). If the material is covered elsewhere, could the article be turned into a redirect? Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC) - Done, and done. As for the article itself, I'd turn it into a redirect unless you can find references referring to referral services (hee) as a phenomenon. Ironholds (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to try to get Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States up to FA status. Any additional eyes would be appreciated! I've also listed this article for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States/archive1. bd2412 T 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Was surpised to find there was no article on this international law concept and have started it. Might be worth a look.NimbusWeb (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC) - good work! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook
[edit] updating our membership list Back when I was advertising WP:Hornbook on user talkpages, I noticed that a large number of our members are inactive. Other WikiProjects don't just rely on users to update their status, but actively intervene. E.g. at Wikiproject India, the "Inactive" list is preceded by the following: | “ | This list includes those members of the project who have not edited for at least three months; it is manually updated on a periodic basis. If your name has been moved here, please feel free to move it back to the active members section upon your return. | ” | I sense that this kind of intervention wouldn't be too controversial, so I'm going to get started on it now. I think "not editing since 2008" is a good heuristic. If anyone protests, please let me complete the process before doing a revert. Once I'm done, I'm more than willing to do a revert, hash out our disagreement on this talk page, and work from there. Thanks Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 02:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC) - Don't waste your time - I'll do it, you work on articley stuff. Ironholds (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, Ironholds & I have done it together! Our official population has plunged from 167 to 106. diff.
-
- The next step is to draft a message to deliver to the talkpage of the people we've removed from the list. Something like,
| “ | Dear {{PAGENAME}}, During a routine review, your name was removed from the list of active contributors to WP:Law. If this was done in error, please restore your name. | ” | -
- of course, not that text ... something less disgusting.Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, sort of works. Do we have a banner in one of those roling internal wikiproject ads? I got thinking on ways to attract interest if we're cutting the chaff. Ironholds (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, "Cut the chaff" doesn't have an urban dictionary entry. Which of these definitions did you have in mind? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not familiar with the "banner" / "rolling internal wikiproject ads" you're referring to Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Chaff is the inedible, useless bit of grain - to "cut the chaff" or "separate the wheat from the chaff" is to remove useless bits - in this case, editors who had retired. See Template:Wikipedia ads. Ironholds (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] can some UK lawyers help determine the notability of HMA v Ritchie and Morren? In response to this AfD, I've been trying to figure out whether HMA v Ritchie and Morren is in some way notable. I've invested a lot of effort in cleaning up the article, yet I'm still unable to figure out why the article was created. I am hoping some UK lawyers can provide some insight. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] A notability guideline Based on the discussion in that AfD, I think we need to try and set out a base notability guideline for cases. My starting point is that cases are notable if: - They have been covered in detail by multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject, or:
- They were heard in the highest court in a state/country jurisdiction acting in an appellate form:
- They set a legal precedent.
Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC) -
- Your proposed guidelines seem good. I'm a bit new to AfD discussions -- would this be a WP:CASES, our analogue of Wikipedia:Notability (music)? If so, certain things need to be made explicit:
- 1. The most frequent court cases in the English Wikipedia are from English speaking, and hence common law, countries. So the guideline should place emphasis on common law cases.
- 2. The English-speaking jurisdictions listed at common law are: United States, United Kingdom, India, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Hong Kong. We don't need to cover all those jurisdictions, but we certainly don't need to cover jurisdictions that aren't on that list.
-
- I'd say list them as "common law jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom, India or Canada". Ironholds (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- 3. Only appellate courts can set legal precedent, but is there a way to distinguish appellate court cases that do set a precedent, from those that do not? For example, in New York there is an intermediate appellate court, above the trial court and below the highest court. In the United States, there are the Federal Circuit Courts, and the notability guideline for cases from these courts would require some nuance.
-
- Er.. no, that's not how it works. The High Court of Justice, for example, sets precedent and is a CFI. This setting of nuances isn't needed, since simply being in an appellate court isn't a guarantee of notability under this guideline. Whether the case is in the New York intermediate appellate court or the Federal Circuit Courts it doesn't matter, it's the setting of precedent that counts. Ironholds (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- 4. On a related note, Is it always transparent whether a case sets a legal precedent? When someone says "XYZ case set a precedent," how do they know? A precedent is something that can bind a lower court in the jurisdiction, but that can is problematic: the extent of the "binding" doesn't get figured out until the future case.
-
- With hindsight it's easy to see - this might be problematic for more recent cases, but I can't see of a way around that. Ironholds (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- 5. It sounds like we need a section for appellate cases, and a section for non-appellate cases.
- 6. Of course, it is not enough for the parties to be notable. The proper place to discuss the case is on the article devoted to the notable party, until the case achieves notability for other reasons. So, what are the reasons? ... is it enough for the case to have been "covered in detail by multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject"? What if a famous actress is accused of stealing from a department store, and the news media covers every aspect of the case (Ms. Jones cried upon the witness stand and apologized, the security guard testified that he had a cocaine addiction, the jury pronounced her guilty on all charges and the judge committed her to a sentence of six years in prison, thus destroying her acting career)? Nothing particularly interesting happened during the case, but the verdict was what ended a very notable career. I don't know the answer to this one.
- 7. In writing this guideline, we might want to do a review of the previous AfD's of court cases.
Here are the old AfDs of court cases. Wikipedia:Law/list of caselaw AfDs.
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I'd go along with what Ironholds has said, really. If a case is in the House of Lords, it goes without saying that it is notable. Equally, a high court case can be notable where it sets a precedent, or is cited by future cases as a development in law. If a case is reported by numerous sources, it's probably safe to say that it's notable; journal articles and textbook coverage (which can be ascertained via google books) are also worth considering. RichsLaw (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) - Thinking on it, would it be an idea to stick some rules in place for automatic notability of judges/lawyers as well? Ironholds (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I think that makes sense. Recently I saw an AfD for Druanne White, and WP:USCJ is constantly creating articles for judges. I suppose you could create Wikipedia:Notability (law) with sections for cases, judges, and lawyers; the text could be tentative and broad, and then we could invite feedback from all the related wikiprojects to flesh out the details.
- btw, this would be a good opportunity to rally support around whatever it is we're doing for WP:MOSLAW, since part of that project will involve importing the conventions from these various wikiprojects. Let me know how I can divide this work with you. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 18:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas v Hello! Keep - reason: went to the House of Lords, significant coverage in the media, set precedent
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaye v. Robertson Keep - reason: Landmark case, significant coverage in journals/articles/etc.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas v. City of Jeannette Keep - reason: SCOTUS case, inherently notable
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes) Delete - reason: failed WP:NOT#NEWS.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of the Court Administrator v. Floro, Jr. Delete - reason: article by banned user.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. No Consensus - keep reason: coverage by outside sources.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HM Advocate v Ross Keep - reason: noted case, coverage in law texts.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander v. State of Alaska, et al. Delete - reason: non-notable case, changed no law.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moorov v HMA Keep - reason: covered by outside sources, noted case that established a precedent.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir v Glasgow Corporation 1943 SC(HL) 3 Keep - reason: coverage in law texts
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Duyn v. Home Office Keep - reason: set precedent
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosecutor v. Milan Martic Keep - reason: passes WP:N
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustafson v. Payless Keep - reason: US State Supreme Court case.
- Hope that breaks it down for people. Consensus seems to be overall that a case can be notable if/when:
- it's a case of a Supreme Court of a state/country, I think we can all agree on that.
- It has significant coverage in third-party sources.
- It set a precedent
- Really that's mainly what I suggested earlier. The problem is going to be 1) cases relatively recently, where any precedent isn't yet clear, and 2) separating coverage of a celebrity's trial from coverage of the celebrity, for example. Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please join in the discussion if you are interesed Singularity42 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] Articles for deletion - magistrate judges Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandor Vadas, a user has raised the issue of the notability of U.S. Magistrate Judges. I have attached all such articles to the AfD to allow for the question to be answered in context. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] Guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/notability for your comments. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC) - Awesome. I'll make my comments on the corresponding talk page. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Individual articles for each Article of US Constitution Why is the need for that? (Is there an urgency?, considering each article reflects the original text?) Does it promote American "self-centrism"? I mean, how about other countries' constitution? Why this needs to be in separate articles? Why not merge them into the whole US Constitution article? Why does they have their own article, especially that they are repeating on every mother articles, or why is there a need to explain each section, each article of the US Constitution?--JL 09Talk to me! 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC) - Because the US constitution and its explanatory texts are so long. We have a general rule on Wikipedia that any article longer than 80-100kb needs to be split into sub-articles, because it's just too long to reasonably load and read, and if you were to put the US constitution itself, the history of writing it, its application, and everything that's been written by academia about each section into one article it would be much, much longer than 100kb. As an example, the Second Amendment - it's commonly written about, and when writing about the Second Amendment you'd have to put in the text itself, various interpretations of the text, challenges to it, restrictions on it (Brady Bill, anyone?) challenges in the Supreme Court and elsewhere.. it would be far too long. This is nothing to do with US-centrism, and people can have separate articles on sections of the constitutions of other nations as well - if they have the sourcing and the sheer amount of prose to justify it. Ironholds (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- Okay, thanks.--JL 09Talk to me! 11:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, just to address the question about US-centrism, you can (for example) find Wikipedia articles about individual amendments to the Constitution of Ireland; see, e.g., Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Finding a case file (or whatever it's called) I'd like to find a reliable source for this case. Anyone know where I can find one? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC) - Well the case would need to be a notable one. There's Worldlii, which contains worldwide case transcripts? Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean notable in wikipedia terms, or that they only include some cases in their archives? Is it free? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's free - they normally only include cases in the higher courts. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
-
- I some searches for the case (by docket number, and also by party name) in two separate legal databases (Lexis and Westlaw), and unfortunately this case doesn't come up. That isn't proof that the case isn't notable, but it just means you'll have a headache of a time finding reliable sources.
- If you give me more context as to how you learned about the case, and why you're writing about it, maybe I can be of more assistance. I'll respond fastest if you leave a note at my talk page, but also leave one here because maybe other wp:law wikipedians can also help. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- This court document is an answers to Defendant's interrogatories of Plaintiff, TSR Inc. The Defendants in this copyright infringement lawsuit asked TSR some questions as part of pre-trial discovery. Apparently, the majority of the questions were designed to identify the source of the alleged infringement with page numbers. While the individually alleged infringement would not be copyright infringement on their own, their sheer number seems to imply that TSR might have had a viable "total concept and feel" claim for misappropriation of Gygax's Mythus book. I do not believe that this case ever went to trial or that a judge ever made an order other than to dismiss the suit. Most likely, the litigants withdrew the case after reaching a settlement. As for a source for these court documents, I do not believe it would be possible to locate them online. I searched the website of the United District Court for the Central District of Illinois and they do not have any documents. I don't think any would be on Pacer either because free disclosure was only implemented in 2002, and this case was filed in 1992. You might request copies from the court directly. If you want to know how to cite any of these documents, you would identify them by title e.g. "TSR'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO GDW'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF", along with the case name "TSR v. Game Designer's Workshop et. al." and the docket number, "92-1230." The docket number shows the date the suit was filed i.e. 1992. Gx872op (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move of World War II evacuation and expulsion articles I recently began a centralized discussion for the renaming of population transfer or forced migrations relating to WWII. Users in this area have shown interest in the topic in the past so I wanted to bring the discussion at Talk:World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion#Requested_move to your attention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Globalization I've noticed that a lot of law articles have serious systemic bias problems. In particular, many general topics like Criminal Law or Torts are presented (almost) exclusively from the point of view of common-law jurisdictions. Even the common law is perspective is almost exclusively focused on American (and, to a lesser extent, UK) common law. There is virtually nothing from other English-speaking jurisdictions and even less from non-Anglosphere common law nations like India or Pakistan. This is contrary to the idea that Wikipedia articles should have a Global Perspective. Obviously countering these systemic biases is a major project and requires expertise that most people on this project don't have, but at the very least there needs to be more about civil law and other non-common-law legal systems. Elliotreed (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC) - I should mention that I cross-posted this same comment to the systemic bias WikiProject talk page. Elliotreed (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Popular pages I have requested a list for this project at [1]. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] Law by geographical area/jurisdiction I was just reading a few law articles e.g. no contest and Knock-and-announce. I noticed that both have been slapped with globalize tags because they deal with USA common law and the Unites States constitution. It then dawned on me that each section on Law should be grouped into the country that its laws pertain too. Rather than have an article named Burglary - with a list of countries and their legal codes/offences et al - it should be by country followed by its legal codes. This is more logical than having one article that claims ownership over ALL similar laws in all countries. Laws: By country Categories: Laws in that particular country This way missing knowledge/articles can be detected more easily. e.g. Theft in UK (article)√ done but no similar (article) for Italy. Doing it this way means there is no need to slap globalize tags on every article because they, by and large, deal solely with the United States - despite its importance on WP, the USA is just one jurisdiction among 195 others in this world, The infobar should also reflect that, clicking on it just links to articles that have been generally written by US grad school students making the Law project too American-centric. If articles pertaining to laws were grouped by country, once a significant number of articles dealing with a particular law in a number of countries had been completed, then an article entitled the Comparison of (e.g. Robbery) law from around the world could be created. Simpler still it could be in the form of a table. With ticks or crosses for quick reference. Either way, as an independent who by happenstance stumbled onto the aforementioned pages, I wish the Law project well but it needs a better layout/order. Yours Bob Jones UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.67.53 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Relevant AfD Relevant AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck. Cirt (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Hi! I've nominated a template within this project's scope for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 October 9#Template:Law unref. All comments are welcome. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC) - I frankly don't know if anyone on this project continues to keep track of pages identified by this template, but if it's useful to the project then please reflect this at the discussion. bd2412 T 14:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hustler Magazine v. Falwell This would be an interesting project of an article to get to WP:FA. Anyone interested in helping out? Cirt (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC) - The People vs. Larry Flynt would also be an interesting one. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Inviting my attorney-friend to Wikipedia? I have a friend my age (26) who is a lawyer and is very kind, helpful, and generous. I've thought about introducing him to Wikipedia, and specifically this Wikiproject. I'm retired (I still make a few edits per month as an anon) but the year I spent volunteering/addicted to this website has truly made me a better person. What are the chances that if a 26 y.o. attorney chosen at random from the population of all attorneys in Florida will likely have a positive experience if I (as I'm doing) try to find him a couple mentors and they teach him WP:BOLD? I'm afraid that he will not ever immerse himself "in the flow" and every article edit and talk-page edit will seem like work to him. I'm moving up to finish my last semester and will only be his friend for 5 months, so I'm aiming to be a positive influence on his life and check up on him 12 years later when I'm done with med school & residency & Korea. Please share a couple humorous/sarcastic/clever responses (they are necessary to stay civil and release tension & frustration without editors getting burnout) but at the same time, please Assume Good Faith and I will log in to my main account, which has email activated and share his name & FBA# through email to any editors I think are serious so we can fast-track him! Kudos to all the remaining warriors who fight creep and cruft! Sorry had to say that! Best, James 윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC) - Update[2] 윤리윤리윤리 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a '82 case brought by US female factory workers under the '64 Civil Rights Act, suing for equal pay and representation. It was proposed for deletion. I've deprodded as my searches indicated notability, but I don't know enough about the case to edit the article. Can anyone at this project help improve it to avoid deletion? Fences&Windows 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC) - The subject matter of the case may be notable for gender discrimination, but the appeal only concerned reasonable attorney's fees. The legal significance of the case is only on this point; however, I added an info bar. Gx872op (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Name change I would like to ask about two aspects of the Name change article. 1. Should the article be part of this project? 2. Is there any validity to this edit, especially this passage in a footnote: Hoffman vs. Bank of America, 2006, Middle District of Florida (note that although this case appears to have been decided in 2006, it may not yet be final because the clerk did not date it with the real Year of the Lord, as the decision appears to require, but with the traditional Year of the Lord (see Chesterfield's Calendar Act; the real year of Jesus' birth is generally accepted to be 6-4 b.c.). The claim that a decision might be invalidated or the date of some key event (the date it is too late to appeal?) could be determined by how the clerk writes the date seems outlandish, and characteristic of those who push fringe legal theories. However, I am not a lawyer or law student, and don't have access to this case, so I cannot say what this passage is really all about. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC) - In answer to the second question, there is no validity with the note regarding the year the case was decided. It should be sourced (and I doubt one can find a reliable source stating that a decision is invalid if it does not state "Year of our Lord"). The 18th century English legislation of the Chesterfield Calendar Act is not relevant. Singularity42 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have now removed the questionable edit. Just to clarify, historically, there were missing dates on English calender when the calender was changed to the Gregorian calender. How that was dealt with was in the above mentioned Act. However, it is completely WP:FRINGE to say that courts can no longer take notice of what the current year is. If the editor continues to make those type of edits, I suggest bringing it up at the fringe theory noticeboard. Singularity42 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This template was kept (although renamed) in the TfD discussion. Please place a link to these unreferenced law-related articles on the project page. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases: 2008 I've been trying to add information to the red linked pages listed on the List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases. However I'm a little bit confused by Margine v. Ministry of Defence. Google came up with no pages regarding the case and even the official website of the records of the House of Lords bears no mention of it. Can anyone confirm that the case ever existed? Thanks, --Île_flottante~Floating island Talk 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC) -
- I am unable to answer this question; however, in the course of cleaning up some typography on the page (changing "v." to "v" per British convention, and then cleaning up all the resulting redlinks), I discovered two anomalies which you might want to look into as a person with special interest in the topic:
- 1) The page lists "Midland Silicones v Scruttons, 1961, 2 Lloyd's Rep. 365 (H.L.)"
-
- 2) The page lists "White v White 2000" with no further info
-
- however, Wikipedia has "White v White 2001". The article says the case was actually decided in 2000 so this is probably the article you're after, and I have taken the liberty of creating a redirect to there.
I'm going to suggest that you delete it. It was originally added by an IP address in the wrong date section, which leads me to doubt the credibility... Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 08:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC) - Okay, I think I'll remove it then. Thanks for your help! =) --Île_flottante~Floating island Talk 14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please help if you can: Thanks in advance.--Mais oui! (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC) |
