Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Contents

[edit] Category- Jewish Supreme Court justices.

Was told to bring it up here before I created the Category, but I misbehaved and created the category already. Hope it is OK. I'm new around here and I am not clear as to what is a legit Category and what isn't. There are Categories for Jewish Jurists and Jewish Lawyers so I figured there could/should be one for Jewish Supreme Court justices.--LAZY 1L 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope you have better luck that the sh**storm that I blundered into when I created Category:Black lawyers. --Legis (talk - contributions) 08:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback/rating for International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

I would like some feedback, and ideally a rating, for the above article. I appreciate that this is a little outside the remit of Wikiproject Law (and is probably more suited to Wikipedia:WikiProject International law but I have already put in a request for feedback at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback and on the International Law Wikiproject and have had no rsponse. If anyone would be kind enough to provide feedback/rate the article, I'd really appreciate it. --Jim (Talk) 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We've got a real lack of people working on international law topics at the moment - I repeatedly tried to find someone willing to create a convention for ICJ case names (which are titled all over the place) some months ago, and couldn't get so much as one response. Rebecca 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that, though I believe I'm really more a part of the problem than the solution given my limited scope of knowledge. I read through the ICJ nuke article, and while I found it an interesting case, I just don't know enough to comment intelligently. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys. It's a shame there aren't many people working on international law topics; I might be able to do something about this so I'll send off any email to a few people that might be able to help. One query about the article you may be able to answer: the second paragraph contains the following sentence: "In addition, the proceedings raised issues such as the possibility of non liquet and the status of "Lotus approach".". What is the "Lotus approach"? I've tracked down a reference to it in the ICJ Opinion, but can't make much sense of it. --Jim (Talk) 12:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laws of war discussion at Military History Project

In case anyone here is interested, a discussion about starting a Laws of War or Warcrimes task force is ongoing at the military history project: [1]. Cla68 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing topics lists

  • I've been working on serveral missing topics lists for the past year and I was curious if several may be of any help to the project, specifically those based on Michael Newton's Encyclopedia of High-Tech Crime and Crime-Fighting, Carl Sifakis's Encyclopedia of American Prisons, Mitchel P. Roth's Prisons and Prison Systems: A Global Encyclopedia, and Cops, Crooks, and Criminologists: An International Biographical Dictionary of Law Enforcement, Updated Edition by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod ? Also, I noticed there was a proposal for a possible WikiProject related to crime and I was curious if such a project was neccessary from WikiProject Law's point of view ? MadMax 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to WikiProject Law Enforcement

Would anyone mind adding us as a sister WikiProject, WikiProject Law Enforcement? Thanks →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert N. C. Nix, Jr.

Could anyone take a look at the Robert N. C. Nix, Jr. article (former Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the first African American Chief of any state's court). I've done some fairly massive edits on it (it failed to mention that he had died when I first saw it), and I'd like to add a section about the major decisions he wrote, but before I put that work in I'd like to get some feedback on what's already up there. Thanks, JCO312 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Law

Portal:Law needs help. The Article of the Week, Picture of the Week, and other weekly features are not set up. The main person maintaining it is probably too busy to take care of it or on wikibreak? The portal can probably use a few people to work on it, so that one person doesn't have to do everything. If anyone wants to help, but not sure how to update these things, I'd be happy to show how. --Aude (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I set up the rotation system for the portal, and pretty much assumed that someone would fill in the blanks when I was too busy. And I've been too busy! bd2412 T 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roe v. Wade FAR

Roe v. Wade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old proposals, new proposals

Hi everybody, I am a new volunteer for WP:Law. I see there are a lot of case pages that need updating. I'll start with Morisette and Williamson, because those will be easy. I'll follow the conventions as best I am able. By the way, I'm still hoping someone will help with my Beale bio idea, but I will do it myself if need be. Non Curat Lex 08:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Self-follow-up: I have another idea. Holmes-and-the-law. Not Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. I mean Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Every once in a while, someone drops in an allusion or out-and-out quotation. For example, has anyone read Judge Shira Sheindlin's opinion in _Radioactive J.V. v. Manson_, 153 F. Supp. 2d 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)? The case should be familiar to regular readers of Dean Symeonides' annual review of Conflicts cases, or fans of the band called Garbage.

[edit] Case citation?

Could somebody knowledgeable attempt to track a case citation for the Love Shack article? It is said there that the song was quoted by Bill Pryor in a 2005 11th circuit court of appeal. The case name would probably look like "Zibtluda Corp. v. Gwinett County". Circeus 13:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I’ve found the opinion and put a citation in the article. However, I claim no knowledge about the proper way to cite this kind of thing. On a related note, {{cite court}} could be useful for this but needs work. —xyzzyn 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarence Thomas

Weird things are going there. Could someone check? Look like a pretty incoherent opinion piece. Both now and also before the latest changes, as far as I've seen. No idea how to fix that. Lupo 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed per my edit summary. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I left a long message (probably too long) at the relevant user's talk page in regard to the text, as it was readded. I encouraged the user to post at the Clarence Thomas talk page. The text is original research, POV (for example, it attempts to argue that Thomas is a "true originalist", among other things), and unencyclopedic (it reads like an academic lecture). That said, the article does need to discuss Thomas' jurisprudence more than it does currently. I don't know if the user is going to post at talk or not, but I've added the article to my watchlist and would appreciate it if others did the same, as the text is going to need a lot of work if even a portion of it is going to be part of an encyclopedia article. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States v. Butler

The statement "The idea that Congress has authority separate and distinct from powers granted by enumeration was (and still is) controversial." in that article is marked for a citation. I have no idea whether the statement or the {{citation needed}} tag is completely impertinent, though, as I am completely unacquainted with law in general, much less US constitutional law, but I assume the answer will be obvious to anybody here.Circeus 19:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing topics

I've created a list of missing topics about law and law enforcement. I've tried to find any relevant articles with an equivalent content but I'd be grateful is those more proficient than me could have a look at it. - Skysmith 13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infoxbox Suggestion

Could I suggest that your infoboxes, if they don't already, try to include links to analagous articles in other countries. For example, I'm pretty sure that computer hacking etc is illegal in the US but I don't know what laws govern it. Would be handy to have a link between the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and analagous laws in other countries and governing bodies (e.g. the EU). --Seans Potato Business 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that is a job or a "see also" section.Circeus 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article

Hello all, I created a new article United States v. Curtiss-Wright. It still needs improvement and more of what the case law says.Charleenmerced Talk 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Merged and redirected to existing United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English law

I have some serious concerns about the quality of our article on English law, and have raised them on the Talk page. Please contribute to the discussion and help improve the article:

Thanks. -- Mais oui! 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First look deal

I recently created the article First look deal. I'm not a lawyer so I have little understanding of what a first-look agreement is. I linked it in from the William Monahan article and the term comes up many times across Wikipedia. Anyways, you guys must know what this agreement entails. Could you improve it enough that a basic understanding can be taken away? A simple paragraph would be great. Thanks-BillDeanCarter 12:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am no IP lawyer, but I have chipped in a little more info. Suggest someone with greater expertise takes it forward as needed. --Legis (talk - contributions) 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascinating. Thanks. It confirms what I thought, that a first-look deal can "chill" the bidding on a sale. Do you have any idea why certain parties would enter into a first-look deal? In the instance of William Monahan I wonder if it wasn't so that he could obtain the rights to the novel he wanted to adapt from Warner Bros.-BillDeanCarter 15:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turnaround (film) && production write-through contract

I don't want to seem too greedy, but these are two other entertainment lawyer-like articles that are linked to and currently non-existent in the William Monahan article I've been working on. I can intuit what these terms mean, but that kind of inference can only be so accurate.

  • The production write-through contract article is very specific to a screenwriter, but it would be great if someone could expand on how these contracts are done and how often. I haven't found any information on the term on the internet, other than the brief mention by Monahan.
I wonder if the "chain of title" has anything to do with the production write-through contract. It does help keep the "chain of title"/derivative works in the hands of the original copyright owner. Again, I intuit, not know.-BillDeanCarter 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have started the article. It's stylistically based on the article First look deal and currently unreferenced. If someone here can improve it I would appreciate it.-BillDeanCarter 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Turnaround deal sounds like a pretty general term that probably already has an article at Wikipedia that I just don't know where to find. It's probably a kind of deal that spans many industries.

If you can help me out with these articles that would be a great help. It gives my article on the screenwriter William Monahan a little more gravitas.-BillDeanCarter 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Monahan article under review at FAC

Hello. You guys have recently helped me with some of the nuances in the William Monahan article. I just self-nominated this article on the recent Academy Award winner for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan at WP:FAC. If you're interested please give it a read and comment at FAC if you will, as well as copyedit if you wish. It's a fascinating read. I have taken an entertainment lawyer-like angle in some of the sections to demonstrate the business side of being a screenwriter. I hope you enjoy reading it.-BillDeanCarter 20:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law related article on AFD

[edit] Infobox Judge

I'm not sure if this is of interest to this project, but there is now a generic {{Infobox Judge}}. Examples of its use can be seen in all of the U.S., Canadian, and Oregon Supreme Court Justice articles. --PhantomS 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law firms within the scope of this project?

They are not mentioned on the project page nor has this been mentioned in this talkspace or in the previous archives. Or would they belong in {{WikiProject Business & Economics}}? BrokenSphere 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law template

Is there such a thing as a law template? Today´s featured article is same-sex marriage in Spain. In the article there is a table with the name of the law and important dates and also the name of the institution which made the law: the Spanish Parliament. It would be nice to have a template to put into all the articles about laws and bill projects, like Brazilian Congressional Bill No. 1151, for instance. A.Z. 07:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. I will slap one on. --Legis (talk - contributions) 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Assent FAR

Royal Assent has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey Frank Robbins

This article is really about a conflict between Mr Robbins and the Bureau of Land Management which has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court. I recently expanded it, but I am (1) not a lawyer and (2) Australian, so I'm fairly sure I've made mistakes. Could someone competent please do a quick cleanup? (And, hey, a thorough cleanup would not go astray either ...) Thanks, CWC 12:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations

I don't understand how to write the law bit of a article on legislation, so I would be grateful if anyone wants to pitch it on Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations. Ta. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learned intermediary doctrine

Could someone have a glance at a new article Learned intermediary doctrine? It's just avoided deletion on other criteria, but really needs someone au fait with law to check it out. For instance, is it biased or original research? Tearlach 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court of the United States FAR

Supreme Court of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hi, guys. Anyone could give us a hand with the article Civil Code of Argentina? It has been recently translated from Spanish, bt none of us knows much about law. If you have any doubts or there's something ambiguous, leave a meesage in the article's talk page. Thanks! --Mariano(t/c) 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preemption needs cleanup

The article entitled Preemption (law) needs major cleanup, particularly the section on ERISA. --Eastlaw 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dred Scott v. Sandford FAR

Dred Scott v. Sandford has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki Cooperation

First, sorry for my english. I've wrote it is en-3, but it's mostly a joke, I think... :/ So, if I make a mistake, please correct the message with the [edit] button !
Secondly, I don't know if the message is in the right place, so please move it..

There is a discussion on fr.wikipedia about a interwiki cooperation for Law projects. According to fr:User:Boeb'is, this cooperation could take place for reviewing translations (but (French) project don't really like the translations...) ; each Law project could also create a page where other Wikimedians could give their commments to improve the quality and exchange experiences and opportunities, each time it is possible ; but without having to speak the language of the Wikipedia. It could also be useful to point national-POV (which is a real problem on a Wikipedia where at least 90 % of the editors are.. French..).

I also add to this that we have, on (French) and (English) projects, a WP:1 subproject. Since the aim of Wikipedia is not to build a French Encyclopedia, no more a British or American encyclopedia, I think we should have common policies, at least to attribute the top importance level to an article.

I don't know if this effort could have some success here ; I don't know where it could take place (here, or directly on m: ?). But I simply hope that with more legal editors, a better encyclopedic content will be provided. Erasoft24 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Law_508b.html"