Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

Clyde cancer cluster

Hello, people of WikiProject Law. I've created this message to notify active members of the project. I need help improving my article about the Clyde cancer cluster, an incident that Whirlpool was sued for in two court cases (even though the article doesn't yet talk about the second court case, see the end of this message for the link to more explanation of this). It is definitely not a bad article. It just needs some small improvements. I'm not at all saying minor edits or improvements are bad, but I'm specifically looking for people who can help me long-term with a lot of co-research to improve the article to reach Good Article status. If you're interested in helping, the things needed to be improved are listed on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster#Improvements. In other words, more material needs to be added to improve the article, and I want more people to edit because I feel like I'm the sole editor. Regards, Philmonte101 (talk)

International Megan's Law signed by President Obama

For those interested: This topic is currently covered in International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand for Child Sex Trafficking which is now outdated. The bill was recently signed by the president[1] and goes by the name HR 515 International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders.[2] The page should be moved under a new name and the infobox updated.

Mossack Fonseca

The world's (temporarily?) best-known/most-notorious law firm, Mossack Fonseca, has had a lot of work done on it over the past few days, and yesterday had 100K+ page views. Would be curious to hear any feedback from this group. —Luis (talk)

Urgent attention needed at allodial title to address a morass of tax protestor nonsense

Allodial title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently this is actually a term historically, and has been remade a term in some states possibly as a synonym to fee simple absolute (or a type of fee simple absolute with no encumbrances perhaps?). However, a lot of the concept has been made up out of whole cloth by tax protestors, to the point that much of the article is either insidiously inconsistent or even downright incorrect. People have been complaining about it for years on the talk page. I'm at an absolute loss for what to do with it as well. Given it is a historical concept, though I'm not sure what it is (it's possible it's an obsolete civil law concept), I doubt deletion would be the right outcome, and the result would be just to improve it. Well... here I am to see if it can be improved. Any help would be welcomed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What do the law review articles say about it? Is that the RS we are using? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I will put some RS at the page to consider. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

From my brief look at the RS, I'm confused about the claim "this is made up by the tax protesters". It looks like it was a real concept in law in the early U.S. And even in Nevada it is present in the statutes: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 115.010. I see other statutes that use it in Kentucky, KRS § 381.020. Also N.J. Stat. § 46:3-6. Minnesota has it in their constitution: Minn. Const., Art. I, § 15.

We have recent cases: People v. Johnson-El, 299 Mich. App. 648.

So I want to understand the problem. Are the "tax protesters" using good RS or not? That's what I think we should be concerned about. If not, let's see the examples. Obviously there is good RS out there to describe the term...

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I do see you deleted the stuff on the talk page written by the tax protesters that had nothing to do with the article and sourcing but just their own beliefs that I think we can safely say have little to do with the law of today (and probably not much to do with the law of the past either). I haven't yet looked at the rest of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments requested at WP:RSN

Fabrickator just asked a good question at RSN#Age of Consent template that I think could use input from editors with specialized knowledge about editing law-related articles in terms of the best sources for articles that list specific legislation in different jurisdictions, for example. Please leave a comment on the thread at RSN so as not to split the conversation. Thank you! —PermStrump(talk) 18:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Major missing article

We appear to have no article on trademark strength (first source for ya: [3]), which should have redirects from strong mark, strong trademark, strong servicemark, strength of trademarks, strength of a trademark, etc. This is a key concept in intellectual properly law and is the principal cause of intentional misspelling in trademarks (the second most common, today, being scarcity of plain-wording domain names for interesting words and sensible short phrases).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Law clerks for retired judges?

The List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 8) has several law clerks for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006, as recent as 2015. Is this legit? Does Day O'Connor still have law clerks? --bender235 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, retired Supreme Court justices are assigned one clerk per term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Notecard is correct....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

New article review: Impact litigation

I know nothing about law, so whatever I just assembled to make impact litigation probably needs at least minor fixing. The topic seems important, with decades of scholarly discussion and policy implications, and there are plenty of sources available to expand it. Thanks, FourViolas (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act is too technical and may contain original research

Hello Legalpedians,

I want to drop something off in your in-tray: Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. I passed through it in order to clear it out of the underlinked backlog, and found that the article was about as easy to read as a Magic Eye painting. I suspect it would benefit from de-jargon-ification. Additionally, the bottom section of the article ("Interpretation of Costa-Hawkins") cites one law firm's blog as its only source and has a strong whiff of WP:OR about it. I hope one of you folks can cast a more expert eye over the article at some point.

Thanks, A Train^talk 21:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Judiciary of Sweden

In the process of copy-editing an article about a Greek-Swedish journalist, I was looking at the article on Sweden and then the article Judiciary of Sweden. I was surprised to see that title, "Judiciary of Sweden". I had seen a discussion somewhere in which this was discussed regarding Finland. See User talk:Corinne/Archive 20#Judiciary, and in particular the link to Talk:Judicial system of Finland#Requested move 26 April 2016, where a proposal to change (move) the title of the article Judicial system of Finland to "Judiciary of Finland" was not approved. Why would the title of Judiciary of Sweden stay, when it was determined not to be correct for Finland? In my understanding of the words, "judiciary" does not mean the same thing as "judicial system".  – Corinne (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court Committee on Practice and Procedure

At Hearsay in English law I came across a reference to the "Supreme Court Committee on Practice and Procedure" from 1958. Clearly this could not refer to the present Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which was constituted in 2009. So I thought to add a note clarifying what it meant and what it was a committee of (the House of Commons?), only to find there was no information on Wikipedia as to the committee's origin and purpose. I guess "Supreme Court" means the "Supreme Court of Judicature" created by the Judicature Acts (renamed "Supreme Court" and then "Senior Courts"), i.e. the High Court, Crown Court and Court of Appeal, but I have very little information to go on. Apparently it was also called the Evershed Committee after Lord Evershed, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, though his article doesn't mention the committee; and it also included Kenneth Younger, barrister and Labour MP for Grimsby, but his article has no details. Does anyone know more? Does it warrant an article? Hairy Dude (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Morals_clause#References

Is there any way to beef up these references with more citations? Bearian (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Court of Appeal of England and Wales - Cases v. Judgements v. Decisions

When referring to cases which have come before a CoA judge, and for the purposes of listing these in a judges article (e.g. Mary Arden (judge)), what is the most appropriate title? Thus far I have come across:

• Judgements
• Cases
• Decided cases
• Decisions

I'm minded to implement and standardise this heading across all at Category:Lords Justices of Appeal, and thought I'd check in here to get a view ... my uninformed preference is Judgements, fwiw. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"Judgments", not "judgements", please. E.g. in this recent CA decision (I just picked a recent one from BAILII and by coincidence Arden LJ was part of the court, but didn't give a separate judgment) the word "judgment" is used 37 times, the word "judgement" not at all. Bencherlite^Talk 10:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've amended all of the instances I'm guilty of, and some more besides. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity as to use of primary and reliable secondary sources in law articles

Is there previous consensus on these somewhere?

• 1 A filed legal pleading or court transcript is a primary source as to what the party plead or said, and a judicial determination in a case is a primary source as to what that determination says.
• 2 The same determination may contain a summary of the arguments and pleadings of each side, or summarizing other court actions. The judicial determination is therefore a reliable secondary source about the pleadings and arguments of each side, and about those other court actions.

This causes problems as in the following example I am encountering.

I used Mass. Supreme Court Justice Wilkins' determination in a somewhat newly classic case (Commonwealth v. Twitchell), as a very reliable secondary source to define “entrapment by estoppel” here. Justice Wilkins wrote, Although it has long been held that "ignorance of the law is no defense", there is substantial justification for treating as a defense the belief that conduct is not a violation of law when a defendant has reasonably relied on an official statement of the law, later determined to be wrong, contained in an official interpretation of the public official who is charged by law with the responsibility for the interpretation or enforcement of the law defining the offense... Federal courts have characterized an affirmative defense of this nature as "entrapment by estoppel".” Boldface is added for emphasis as to this being a secondary source, not as a primary source, as to what how those other (Federal) courts have defined this concept.

Now lacking a secondary source, I want to use the same source as a primary source supporting that "Justice Wilkins cited the Model Penal Code in the decision". This is a straightforward descriptive statement, so use as a source is OK under WP:PRIMARY. But both sentences using this as a source, one as a reliable secondary source, the other as a primary source, will go to the same footnote, which will not indicate it is being used as both a primary and secondary source.

Now, further, I want to sum up the entire Twitchell case, in a straightforward descriptive way, again being OK under WP:PRIMARY. This again will go to the same footnote. But I am now very far from the (very) reliable secondary source use above. There is no way to indicate this to a WP user, who just sees the same footnote being used as a source, but in widely varying ways, without indication that this is so. A WP user would have to read the entire Twitchell case to discover I had done this, which obviates the need for an encyclopedia entry about the terms and case. MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

MBUSHIstory, I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but MOS:LAW may provide some guidance on these issues, though it doesn't define "primary" and "secondary" sources per se. In general, WP:PRIMARY permits citations to primary sources (such as an oral argument transcript) for straightforward, descriptive statements of fact. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Notecardforfree. I will carefully read MOS:LAW, and WP:PRIMARY. I also modified my comment above for anyone new coming to this section, in light of your comment re WP:RPOIMARY. (I am not sure if I should restate my entire modified initial comment below your comment, or modify it above your comment, so other editors don't waste time reading corrected errors I made in my initial statement.) MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

to-do list ?

The main project page refers to a to-do list. Where can I find it? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me

It refers to it (the string "This list is transcluded from the to do page, to edit, click here"), and by transclusion includes it as part of the front page; in short, it's a very short list found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Advice / policy on jurisdiction of articles

Sometimes it can be a little confusing which jurisdiction is being referred to in articles. Also sometimes you can seem to get some duplication of material. For example see Tort and compare it to English tort law, Tort seems to mostly deal with English law without stating as much. Similarly Breach of contract seems to be largely based in US Law. What s the best practice here, should every page be turned into a comparative law introduction with sections for different jurisdictions or links to separate pages. Should I go on a binge of clearly defining which jurisdiction pages apply to and hiving off sections applicable to one country into their own sections or articles? (Talpedia (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC))

Yes, mainly. It'll be useful if we have articles on the general concepts associated with areas of law; sections or discrete articles on country-specific law; and bonus points for sections on the differences between jurisdictions. And where general articles are biased to a specific jurisdiction and in the absence of a quick fix, the reader should be left understanding that the description relates to the jurisdiction. I hope you have some time on your hands to fix all of this; I suspect it's a rather large task. I'm afraid I don't know my way around law articles for be able to point at anything that might serve as an exemplar, but a hunt through GAs and FAs might be useful. Good luck ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Legal expertise requested on DYK

I have nominated State aid for DYK, nomination here. But reviewers have been unsure about some of the more technical legal aspects of it. Would it be possible for someone here (preferably with a background in EU law) to be able to give it a review? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Oz legal expertise required on Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

It is the case that the litigant Kable, of Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), has been editing that article over a long time period. I'd be obliged if the article could be reviewed by someone competent and uninvolved. Note that I have deleted an entire section - the Aftermath Kable 2 section, which you can read in this version. I'd be obliged if someone could advise whether my deletion was appropriate. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Missing Women in Law articles

I've added a new task to the todo list diff, in the form of a list of 1520 women in law for which we have no biography. The list is generated from wikidata, and will update itself on a daily basis. It is part of the Women in Red initiative which seeks to remedy the distressing imbalance between biographies of men and women on wikipedia, where the current ratio is about 86/16. I hope members of this project will lend support to the initiative by adding biographies of women in law. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and in other news, I really don't understand either of the other two entries on the To Do list; someone who does might want to amend them ... I think the ideal is to compose a ToDo list as a series of verb statements telling users what needs doing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)