Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 2

message: Please note that for our articles on statutes, restatements, etc., the powers that be have seen fit to add the § symbol to the character box on the editing page (you can find it somewhere on the last line) so use it generously! -- BD2412 talk 00:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small (§) victory. 

message: Hi, I created a law infobox based on Roe v. Wade for a Indian court case (K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra based on the judgement text). I have some doubts. What does citation mean here? The judgement mentioned a citation, which I have copied, but it also had something called Citator Info, which I can't make out. Can someone please give an opinion on whether the infobox is done right? Thanks. --Pamri • Talk 15:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox help 

message: I'm not sure the value of this, but this user Alloy33 (link to contrib page) has been spamming links to LawyerIntl.com.  Anyone wanna take up reverting them? Mmmbeer 03:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spamming 

message: Above we have something going for templates.  I just thought it might be useful to create a discussion for new/useful categories that we should make sure that we're aware of when creating new articles.
* :Category:Equitable defenses - I started it today to collect all the equitable defense articles that we have out there.  Mmmbeer 22:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds great. I think, in fact, it would be worth starting a page dedicated to categorization issues (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Categorization), like they have for the Medical Wikiprojects. It would be useful to map out the taxonomy of law and examine what categories might be missing. Anyone interested in getting something like that started? -- PullUpYourSocks 03:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan. In the meantime, I've added another:
* :Category:Case law reporters - Simply a category for whatever case reporters are added.  I'm actually thinking that a link to the appropriate "reporter" in legal citation may be more helpful than to case citation.  For example, linking A.2d as it is in the citation. Mmmbeer 13:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *I added a new category yesterday, :Category:Contract clauses.  I think I managed to root them all out, but if anyone knows any that I have missed, let me know (or just stick them in). Legis 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "Law" Categories 

message: At least I find myself thinking, "I need to remember to come back and clean up this article I stumbled across."  So I created, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/Cleanups so that we can contribute to a single list of deficient articles.  I think if we do this, rather than simply creating stubs from the "missing law articles" pages, we can get a better idea of articles that are also in need of some help.
I started this because I was looking at Forum shopping. I realized that while it has some information, it's pretty weak on any real substance.  Feel free to contribute.
Mmmbeer 21:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More clean up stuff 

message: At the bottom of the page there is a "disclaimer", but man, it hardly seem like enough, especially since you have to go from Wikipedia:General disclaimer to the Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.  Would it be such a bad idea to use the following at the top of all the "discussion" pages containing legal information:

Maybe I'm missing an important template already. mmmbeerT / C / ? 13:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need to add a more explicit disclaimer? 

message: Hello, I've just joined the project. I have made a two articles on cases (Partridge v. Crittenden and R. v. Constanza) so far, and I don't know if they are consistent with all other ones. Is there a standard layout that they must have, or are they OK? Izehar 19:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking great to me. There is no official standard for law articles but I think you have the right idea. So long as it's readable to the lay-person you can't go too wrong. --PullUpYourSocks 03:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case law? 

message: Lets have a run at Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics on Law. There's only a few dozen topics left, and many are likely redirects. BD2412 T 03:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1911 topics 

message: Not exactly and obviously law, but I don't know where else to take this. Remarkably, a recent addition at Ted_Haggard#Relationship_with_President_George_W._Bush  is Wikipedia's first mention of the current controversy over the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigating All Saints Church's tax status over an anti-war speech. Does someone want to start an article on the broader matter? I don't watchlist this page, so if anyone wants me, please hit my user talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church tax exemption 

message: Note - I have created a modification of the  template for law articles - 
, which puts articles into :Category:Law-related articles lacking sources. I have substituted this for the regular unref template on some law articles in :Category:Articles lacking sources. Please use this as a resource to note law-related articles that require references. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{LawUnref}}</nowiki> 

message: Legal rights of women---This article seriously needs a rewrite. It's an important subject, and Wiki should have an acceptable article on it as soon as possible. Alexander 007 05:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite [[Legal rights of women]]

message: the article on Warez has a rather pathetic "Legality" section. The entire content is:
Legality
Copyright infringement is sometimes a civil wrong or a crime, depending on the country and jurisdiction. However, there are exceptions and loopholes in some countries.
Help put something worthwhile here. Any specific laws/cases RE: Warez/Software Piracy in particular would be extremely helpful. I'm trying to make a run at FAC again in the spring, its on PR now. Thanks!  ALKIVAR™ 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work for you copyright guru's 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on law? We are also looking for FAs. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 00:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're one of the most active WikiProjects out there... you surely don't want to fall behind in the full article list when compared to other WikiProjects, do you? . Besides, law is one of the fundamental areas of human knowledge, so we need to cover at least some as we push to 1.0... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: District attorney has been redirected to Prosecutor, losing its content: diff. Is this kosher?--Commander Keane 08:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted. It's a perfectly legitimate article as the American form of a prosecutor, which is markedly different to that in a number of other countries. Ambi 08:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  District attorney 

message: I could really use the help with the legal analysis given that it's very possible the good ol' Shrub authorized the violation of the law just recently.  I think that I've taken it a long way, but it would be good to have another pair of eyes go over it.
Also, the case law relating to the topic is pretty thick.  I know I'm certainly NOT an expert in this area.  Given that this is a current issue, it might be a good article to get into shape, and get it there quickly. mmmbeerT / C / ? 02:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  If there are any [[Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act]] experts out there... 

message: Check out the infoboxes used in Digital Millennium Copyright Act and USA PATRIOT Act.  Why are two different templates used for two recent pieces of U.S. statutory law?  Can we come up with an infobox (if none of the current templates are adequate) that can be consistently used in U.S. statutory articles?  Am I simply missing something?  I'm in a bit of a quandry as to which box to use in this article, and there are several others that I would like to add an infobox to. - Jersyko talk 16:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the author of Digital Millennium Copyright Act used Template:Infobox U.S. legislation, while the author of USA PATRIOT Act simply designed his/her own table format.  The former is rather too garish for my taste, although obviously that is a subjective viewpoint.  However, in terms of maintainability, it would probably be best to link as many articles as possible to the existing template, and then play with it to make it more attractive.  --Russ Blau (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I got rid of the "yikes" green and went for a color that's a bit more consistent with American legislation: a light blue gray.  Plus I dropped the really ugly borders. Now watch some revert the change because they liked the green. mmmbeerT / C / ? 17:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, and no one liked the green :). - Jersyko talk 19:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll blame you the moment I get a message from someone saying, "Hey! Why did you change the template.  It was l337 the way it was. I'm reverting!" mmmbeerT / C / ? 20:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent statute template 

message: Found these linked over at Articles requested for more than a year:
* Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20 - poor stub in need of work.
* De in rem verso - no article, should be easy to do a brief stub. found we did have a stub.
* Menashe v. William Hill - no article, should be easy enough to give a brief case summary stub.
* Wanglie case - no article, should be easy to give a brief case summary stub.
Others listed that need work: 
* Customs racketeering - 
* Exploratory Committee - 
* Food politics - 
* Integral Nationalism - 
* Oplan1000 - 
* Rope line - 
as I do not know what they pertain to perhaps they merely need redirects? Thanks in advance for your help, this will get stuff requested for more than a year off the request list!.  ALKIVAR™ 14:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in need of some serious work 

message: I'm not sure where to write this, but I hope this is the right place. I started an article on Tony Kiritsis and noone seems to have read it yet. It may need some copyediting and maybe someone with better juridical knowledge could add something about how this case was important. It helped change US laws on insanity defense (it seems like there was something briefly refered to as "The Kiritsis Law"). This was also one of the first cases that were broadcast on live TV. I have mentioned that some tv stations quit broadcasting it out of fear that Kiritsis would pull the trigger (this was 10 years before people saw Budd Dwyer's brain all over the room on live tv). Please edit whatever you like, and I'd appreciate feedback here or on my talk page or on the article's talk page. (Entheta 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback and copyediting wanted 

message: You might be interested in the Cyberlaw project where a group of Harvard Law School students are taking a class, where part of their exposure is to Wikipedia.  I volunteered to help out.  I am not a lawyer, but rather a computer programmer, and other related worker bee. I am somewhat of a Wiki newbie, with fluctuating time availability, getting more experienced in Wikipedia, with a background in a diversity of Cyber topics. 
 
The students are intensively studying some topics that I think the Wiki community could also benefit from knowing better, especially in some contentious areas where the more inexperienced think consensus trumps the law, and many leaders seem to be doing a less than adequate job of communicating why fair use can be used some places and not others. 
One of the class assignments was to figure out how Wikipedia could do a better job coping with a variety of contemporary issues.  Seems to me the students reccommendations ought to have better exposure to the Wikipedian community for general discussion of their merits.  
The next Wikimania will be held at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society where these students are located and I wonder if there is good enough cooperation between the different interests intersecting here. User:AlMac|(talk) 13:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helping Law Students 

message: I'd like some additional opinions at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 14 on my proposal to merge :Category:United States abortion case law into :Category:United States reproductive rights case law (the proposal was initially just for a rename, but I went ahead and created the latter category to house the cases I named in the proposal). bd2412 T 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions sought on abortion/reproductive rights category merge proposal 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlawful arrest could do with some informed input. --Doc ask? 19:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD