Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

message: Hello. In honor of the women's month, I invite members of this wikiproject and editors in general to help populate :Category:Women's firsts, specially pages related to law, like :Category:First women judges and :Category:First women chief justices. Sincerely, --Thinker78 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Women's month categorizations

message: I’m hoping to find editors with an interest in law to take a look at some suggested changes. The current page contains numerous policy violations leading to the mischaracterization of several prominent cases. I have a conflict, so I’ll leave it to neutral editors to decide:Talk:Gibson_Dunn#February_2024_Requested_Edits CaseyatLeicesterStreet (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look. Sorry the edit request has taken so long. I assume that's because it includes several changes. SilverLocust 💬 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please weigh in on [[Gibson Dunn]]. 

message: Ronald M. George has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 11:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment for [[Ronald M. George]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Seton Hall reports#Requested move 28 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Seton Hall reports#Requested move 28 March 2024]] 

message: I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend looking at law reviews, law journals, and legal treatises on evidence. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article: [[Consciousness of guilt]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors#Requested move 20 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors#Requested move 20 March 2024]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capital punishment#Requested move 1 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Capital punishment#Requested move 1 April 2024]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Capital punishment in New York (state)#Requested move 10 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Capital punishment in New York (state)#Requested move 10 April 2024]] 

message: Can someone have a look at this article? Cheers! BD2412 T 15:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be merged with Lawsuit. Currently Litigation is a redirect to the latter but, in my eyes, it should be the article with Legal case and Lawsuit as redirects to it. DeCausa (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Legal case is a valid summary-style article, since it includes both civil and criminal cases, and a criminal case isn't called a "lawsuit" in common usage. Both Legal case and Lawsuit are in pretty bad states, though. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, a criminal case and a civil case are both kinds of legal cases, with many aspects in common (jurisdictional questions, proceedings, factfinders, processes for obtaining and admitting evidence). BD2412 T 22:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to say because "lawsuit" is an Americanism whereas "legal case" has wider usage across the anglosphere. Because of that, lawsuit and legal case is better wrapped up into "litigation" (which can be civil or criminal) which is the only word that avoids the whole WP:NOTDICTIONARY taint. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

text: We could also add Legal proceeding to the mix. IMO that might be the best home for a globalized BCA. I'm a little wary of smooshing all of these together without further deliberation, especially given that so many other Wikipedias also have separate articles. But I suspect that any encyclopedic distinctions between case/lawsuit/litigation/proceeding would be jurisdiction- or tradition-specific, so one general BCA might be the way to go. -- Visviva (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a BCA is needed. Litigation can redirect to Legal proceeding, which can be the top level article. Then, Criminal litigation and Civil litigation can be separate BCAs that are summarized at Legal proceeding, and each of those articles can be BCAs for different jurisdictions. I think lawsuit could then appropriately redirect to civil litigation. Before these changes are made, however, I think we need a formal move request with notification to all affected page. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My current thinking is to propose merging legal case into legal proceeding and retarget litigation to that. I'll go ahead and post a merge discussion for that and we'll see how it goes. Agree that separate articles on civil litigation (currently a bad redirect) and criminal litigation could also be good; there's certainly plenty of subject matter for all of those. After taking a closer look at lawsuit, I think that should probably just be moved to Lawsuit (United States law) and then the original page turned into a redirect to a hypothetical civil litigation BCA -- but that's probably another issue for another time. -- Visviva (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree, but I'm not sure why Lawsuit (United States) needs a separate page. Lawsuit is a generic term that is used for any kind of case brought by one entity against another. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I would say that we should have a "Civil litigation in X"-type article (among many others) for every jurisdiction X for which adequate sources exist. Even when the broad principles are similar, every jurisdiction's law is its own specialized subject area with its own sources and history. The US is only unique in that, thanks to the heavy US slant of our existing legal coverage, that article is pretty much already written -- it just needs to be untangled from the global concept. But anyway, I'm not proposing to do that just now. -- Visviva (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Legal case]] is in dire need of sourcing 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip#Requested move 11 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:2023 Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip#Requested move 11 April 2024]] 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Legal Insurrection.  Mokadoshi (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Legal Insurrection|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard §&nbsp;RfC: Legal Insurrection]]

message: There is a new article for an attorney Kristina Baehr. I'd welcome discussion of whether the article meets notability requirements. ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of [[Kristina Baehr]] 

message: Hi all
I would really appreciate some help improving Bathroom bill, as far as I can see the main issues are
* It is extremely America focussed, there are many laws in the UK, France etc which are similarly aiming to exclude trans people
* There is no real historical context given, these kinds of arguments have been used for a long time (I added some more info on the talk page)
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I get some help with [[Bathroom bill]]? 

message: Reasonable person#Personal circumstances needs attention, there is a lot of citation needed tags and blocks. Not all of these might be needed, I'm not an expert and wouldn't know any prominent cases or other sources to find, so I'll refrain from editing the section MarkiPoli (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on reasonable person article needs dire attention 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Leasehold estate § This article needs major improvements.  This article is rated "High-importance" to WikiProject Law, but it is missing a lot of information, and the prose needs rewriting to be easily comprehensible to the average (non-lawyer!) reader. SmileySnail (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:Leasehold estate#This article needs major improvements|Talk:Leasehold estate §&nbsp;This article needs major improvements]]

message: Valued fellow law contributors:
The separation of powers doctrine is a core principle of constitutional law in every Western-style legal order. As such, it is a shame that our article on the subject remains at 'start class' quality. It is deficient in legal analysis and generally unbalanced.
I have thus proposed splitting off what amounts to well over half the article into one titled 'branches of government' or similar. These parts are dedicated to describing the structure of individual governments, instead of analysis or a summary of the principle's manifestations (see Wikipedia essay: cargo cult editing for a description of the type of writing I mean). Also, there appears to be no comparative law analysis in the article, which is entirely focused on political thought; whereas, to my mind, an article called 'separation of powers' would mainly be about: (1.) the normative principle in political philosophy, (2.) its impact on political systems in reality, and (3.) . 
I think creating a different article, focused on comparative government analysis of 'branched' governments, would allow both a fresh start for the separation of powers article (I may be able to provide a complete re-draft myself in a couple more years), and also drive qualitative improvments to the newly split article by putting it entirely in the scope of descriptive political science editors. The way things are, I think everyone is a little paralyzed by uncertainty on what the article is there for, since it is admittedly a huge topic with implications for many fields.
Readers will also have an easier time finding what they are looking for if we distinguish these differing focuses. There's clearly a lot of interest in institutions and branches of government as a topic in itself; it's probably worth its own article.
Please let me know what you think. If you agree with my assessment, I could really use your help building the necessary consensus to enact this change: I fear that all the POV editing going on in the WP:CARGO parts of the article might transform into obstructionism upon enactment of the change.
Thanks. —§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 18:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request input on constitutional law topic: Content split proposal for 'separation of powers'  

message: :Talk:Israel has an RfC. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. starship.paint (RUN) 05:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Israel]] has an [[Talk:Israel#RfC:_mention_apartheid_in_the_lead?|RfC on the topic: mention apartheid in the lead?]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Requested move 31 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Requested move 31 May 2024]] 

message: Hello,Please note that State of emergency, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! 
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Authorization and Accountability Act of 2014#Requested move 27 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program Authorization and Accountability Act of 2014#Requested move 27 May 2024]] 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Right of way#Requested move 14 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Right of way#Requested move 14 May 2024]]