Portal talk:Law

message: I would like to see an article entitled Meaning (legal) that would summarize the history and concepts based on  Original meaning and the Plain Meaning Rule (for instance).  I notice that the law-related article Special meaning has been summarily deleted by someone: 2007-07-30T17:06:24 Mikkalai deleted "Special meaning" (nonspecific word combination. content was: 'Special meaning refers to the fixed or limited meaning allowed by law to be given to a word, phrase or expression in specific circumstances ...')  Bob 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you enter it on Wikipedia:Requested articles? Mbisanz (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Meaning

message: I have no legal background whatever, so I don't really have any good perspective on a minor dispute at Moot court.  A new user, user:Jimdugan wants to press the case for an external web-site, which looks to me like spamvertising.  May I invite further opinions at talk:Moot court. --John Maynard Friedman 12:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for third opinion: debate over validity of external link at article Moot Court 

message: Recently having read the term "joint inquest" in an Agatha Christie novel, I´ve checked it in my Langentscheidt as well as in my PONS English-German dictionary, but I could only find the word "inquest" there. So I´d like to know whether "joint inquest" is the correct legal form, short "inquest", or whether there is a real difference in re.
91.21.61.246 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between the legal terms "Inquest" and "Joint Inquest" 

message: Hi, I would like to invite all to kindly review and suggest changes needed to the article M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath, which dealt with the Public trust doctrine for the first time in India. Thanks LegalEagle 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of [[M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath]] 

message: *...that the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was the first bioterrorism attack in the United States, and one of only two confirmed terrorist uses of biological weapons to harm humans?
*...that seven followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh were convicted for being part of a 1985 assassination plot to murder the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon?
----
You may wish to add these to the Did you know? part of the portal, to be rotated through.  It's up to you folks.  Cheers, Cirt 07:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law related hooks that recently appeared at [[T:DYK]] 

message: who damaged the Law portal until five minutes ago with the celtic cross and those sentences???
now all seemed gone back to normalcy, but you know...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.196.12 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  who damaged the portal? 

message: The Prop 8 article currently discusses the legal challenges to and the CA Supreme Court ruling regarding the proposition.  The article discusses a challenge to the proposition based on it being a constitutional revision rather than an amendment.  Constitutional revision currently redirects to Constitution, but the latter article doesn't seem to specifically explain what a revision is.  Might I ask someone to clarify this?  Many thanks. MrBell (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for explanation of or new article titled "Constitutional Revision"

message: Hiw wiuld you cancel a quit claim deed if you haven't recorded it yet?71.105.33.54 (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  quit claim deed 

message: In case anyone wishes to comment (or to contribute to the article in question):  This incipient list of notable individuals—so far, including Mary, Queen of Scots, Marie Curie, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon—who, for a variety of reasons, have created or preserved self-inculpating evidence, to their own discomfiture or undoing, has been nominated here for deletion.  Nihil novi (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of self-inculpators]]

message: Hi - I am interested in Tony Honorés concept of ownership, which I learned as 'Badges or Incidents of Ownership'. However, though Honoré's work is cited several times as "seminal" I could not find an article about the concept, nor is it explored in the article Ownership. Would anybody be so kind to fill in the perceived gap? Yotwen (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I even could make out the book in question: Tony Honore, Making Law Bind (Oxford: Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press, 1987, Library of Congress) - That one however, is unavailable this side of the globe. Your help will be appreciated. Yotwen (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request [[Incidents of ownership]] 

message: I'd like to propose that the format for selected content is standardised using a template I have made. I've listed this intention here to allow for discussion before I change the existing selected content entries to avoid having to revert all the changes due to a problem in the template I have missed, for example. Michael Anon 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm adding selected content anyway I'll use the template for new entries, which should show how it will function in practice. Michael Anon 17:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The template has been implemented for all selected articles, biographies, cases and statutes. Michael Anon 06:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selected content layout 

message: I'd like to propose that the lists of selected content and the nomination pages are merged due to the amount of duplication that exists. Portal:Law/Nominate/Selected article would therefore contain a list of selected articles as it presently does, but would have instructions, perhaps in a collapsed box at the top of the page, about how to add more selected content to the page. Michael Anon 08:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to propose that all the selected content would be merged to Portal:Law/Selected article or its equivalent, but the principle is the same. Michael Anon 19:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes have been implemented. Michael Anon 06:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging selected content lists with the nomination pages 

message: Started this article, but not sure what the proper English term is. I see 126 articles on Wikipedia that use the term Ministerial decree. But in the UK it is called a Ministerial Order (United Kingdom). I reckon, this is the name for a Ministerial decree in this judiciary? Timelezz (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ministerial decree]] or Ministerial order? 

message: I generated a scroll box template for decisions for those who are interested in organizing decisions:
Decisions  	Law
Decision 1 	Case 1
Decision 2 	Case 2
Decision 3 	Case 3
Decision 4 	Case 4
Decision 5 	Case 5
Decision 6 	Case 6
Decision 7 	Case 7
Decision 8 	Case 8
Decision 9 	Case 9
Decision 10	Case 10
Decision 11	Case 11
Decision 12	Case 12
Twillisjr (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scroll Box for Entries/Decisions List 

message: With the news of Scalia's passing, I decided to browse what WP has on Strict Constructionism, and I noticed that it's not part of WikiProject Law.  Anyone care to remedy that?  It could also use some improvement by an expert... 204.145.225.29 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strict Constructionism 

message: This article is a complete mess and is in need of an expert or at least someone with a minimum of understanding of the topic. It defines its subject as a certain body of law and as the study of it and as part of what it calls "companies law", which is probably not even grammatically correct and would or should have an article of its own if corporate law were indeed "a part of a broader companies law" (sic). In fact, "companies law" is a redirect to itself, and the article is also a redirect from "corporations law".
The article also has other links to itself, which indicates more confusion in its scope and content, perhaps due to incorrect mergers or moves: 
The most prominent kind of company, usually referred to as a "corporation", is a "juristic person", i.e. it has separate legal personality, and those who invest money into the business have limited liability for any losses the company makes, governed by corporate law. --Espoo (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Corporate law]] 

message: WikiProject Portals is back!
The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.
As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.
There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals.  So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.
Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.
And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.
From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,      — The Transhumanist    07:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: These articles do not mention each other or explain the difference between these concepts. More specifically, solicitation to commit a crime seems to be exactly the same thing as incitement to commit a crime. In addition, the article on solicitation talks about solicitation to murder when it should apparently be talking about the more general crime of solicitation to commit a crime of violence https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373 . --Espoo (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger / confusion between [[incitement]] and [[solicitation]] 

message: Rather than having a featured image on the page with a constant rotation of images pulled from a subpage, I have put thumbnails of all of our featured images on the main page. Let me know what you think. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have tried something new with images 

message: It has been noted recently that two recurring problems of portals are that they are difficult to edit due to complicated structures invoking subpages, and that they tend to lack an explanation of how featured content gets selected for the portal. I propose that we create an instructional subpage for this explaining how to add new content and setting standards and a procedure for selecting such content. bd2412 T 00:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no objection, I am going to go forward with a draft for this proposed page. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea.  Points to consider on edit barriers:  Transclusions are difficult, especially when they eliminate [edit] links. Beautiful source code to a computer programmer is very different to low barrier source code.  Div tags are hard for editors. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel that perhaps making it easy to propose new content, but leaving up the barrier of expertise for implementing that content, provides the best setup. I envision the addition of portal content reflecting the processes used for the main page and DyK. bd2412 T 00:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  An instructional page for this portal 

message: I have recently close a discussion on merging Portal:English law into this page. Pinging those who expressed an interest in helping merge things , . Per my close, and BHG's oppose, do make sure that the resulting portal is of higher, not lower, quality due to the merge. Ideally, this subheading should serve as a good place to discuss the merge if need be. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge outcome 

message: It's reasonable to say the whole essence of law is to protect what is already inherent in man.Law doesn't give man his right,but recognizes it and ensure there will be no need for the deprivation of those right.Man is the centerpiece of what law is and seeks to achieve.
Its also beneficial to say that anytime the essence and nature of law is being discussed,we invariably talk about the nature of humanity.In the light of this,law is subjected to the control of man and not otherwise and if law is not aimed at protecting  our right,we revolt. Joy abbey (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Under what circumstance would the law not be "subjected to the control of man"? So far as we are aware, there are no alien life forms changing human laws. BD2412 T 23:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law made for man and not otherwise 

message: Hello, I am a new editor and would like to request review on Draft:The Manitoba Law Journal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deardorff (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for draft page review