Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal

message: This page recommends, in the case of U.S. citations, use of the non-free Bluebook citation style guide for articles relating to U.S. legal cases. However, the Indigo Book (formerly Baby Blue) is a free content, public domain fork of text from a version that had lapsed into the public domain due to non-renewal, and is nearly identical to the official version.
In my opinion, as it is an open content project, the Manual of Style should endorse the use of the Indigo Book (and maybe it should be on Wikisource too?) as opposed to a non-free version. Would this be a good idea? ViperSnake151  Talk   21:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I skimmed the PDF version that is linked at Indigo Book, and as far as I can tell, it appears to be the functional equivalent of the Bluebook in many respects (though it looks like the system doesn't use small caps). In principle, I like the idea of utilizing an open-source citation convention, but I also think that articles about U.S. cases should conform to the same citation convention that is used by 99 percent of law reviews in the United States. Also, there are plenty of publicly-accessible Bluebook guides floating around the internet (see, e.g., this and this). For those reasons, I think we should continue to recommend that editors use the Bluebook, but I'd also be okay with adding Indigo Book to the list of recommended citation conventions for U.S. cases as an additional resource. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use Indigo Book instead of Bluebook 

message: I made subsections for titles in different countries, so details can be given for those countries. MBUSHIstory (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsections for titles in different countries

message: I described what I saw being done in stable and good articles when there are ambiguous titles and added it here. MBUSHIstory (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambigous titles 

message: There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#"Bare" / "Raw" URLs in common style guides that arose out of the use of URLs in legal citations and may be of interest to people watching this page. AHeneen (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  URLs in legal citations 

message: Hi all, 
I've recently started working on a some articles in this project field and have noticed a few issues.  The one I'd like to discuss at the moment is the problem of WP:Original Research.  OR is a problem that crops up in many areas of WP articles – my "home" area of WP:CHINA certainly included.  However, it seems to be pretty pervasive here at WP:LAW.  In quite a few of the articles on cases, including even some of the well-known cases, the majority of the article is cited from and attributed to the case itself.  This is poor practice, and does not comply with the guidelines at WP:OR.  Specifically, it violates the policies regarding the use of primary sources, which we are instructed to avoid here on WP (the specific section is at WP:PSTS).  A relevant excerpt from the primary source section: 
I will endeavor to improve articles I work on by replacing case citations with citations to reputable secondary sources like prominent books, law review articles, and commentary in casebooks.  I invite others to consider these thoughts and share your viewpoints.  Additionally, I would like to suggest that, if the community agrees, a note on this subject be added to this MOS page, perhaps in the "Article Content" section.  Thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR Issues 

message: Hi all,
I would like to make a suggestion that is relatively small in nature but would apply to a fairly large number of articles.  Most articles on cases currently have the case citation immediately following the case's first mention (in our case, the lead) as is de rigueur in legal writing.  However, I don't think this is necessary on Wikipedia, and I've had a number of readers tell me that they find this practice confusing and distracting, especially in those cases where there are two or even three different reporters cited.  Given the prevalence of excellent case infobox templates like  and similar, citation inclusion in the lead is also completely redundant.  I would recommend we specify that citations not be used in leads and instead be given in the infoboxes.  As an obligatory aside, this is very similar to what has been done in China and other East Asia related articles with Chinese characters and romanizations in the lead.  Any comments are welcome.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support this cleanup proposal.  Citation data belongs in reference citations, not lead-section prose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input.  I'll make the change now.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I reverted because I'm not a fan and I think this needs wider consensus. The first problem I have is that I believe this is unnecessary instruction creep. MOS is descriptive of current practice, not prescriptive, and current practice is very out of line with the proposed change.  which is mostly used to create US Supreme Court citations in ledes has over 3000 transclusions. WikiProject SCOTUS explicitly recommends using this style when creating articles. There's incredibly wide ranging consensus that including the citation in the lede prose is the style that should be used. Secondly, I don't believe this is an actual problem. I just don't believe readers are loading Obergefell v. Hodges, seeing a couple scary numbers and then promptly closing their browser never to look at the page again, or being so distracted by 8 characters that they are unable to read or comprehend the rest of the prose. What I think is happening is that they see it, wonder what it means, and continue reading without regard for it. In fact, a large number of these lede citations are hyperlinked, so perhaps they are confused, follow the link and learn something new. I would agree citing three different reporters or all of the various docket numbers in the lede is too much and confusing, but I don't think that's actually common. I think the proposal would create far more disruption and work than it's worth. Don't forget that we also have readers who are lawyers, law students, and legal scholars for whom this information is relevant. Infoboxes are great if you're familiar with the layout of Wikipedia, but not everyone is, and if all you're getting in a search engine result is the first few lines of prose this is actually incredibly useful. Third, the implied requirements go against other parts of the MOS. Personally, I have a problem with adding guidance that an infobox should or must be included. That's determined by consensus at each individual article per WP:INFOBOXUSE (and over which tons of bytes have been spilled discussing this very problem) and including it here would just open the door to wikilawyering about the subject since this would be seen as overriding local consensus (and would also be inconsistent with broader consensus at MOS:INFOBOX). I think this is a solution in search of a problem and instruction creep. But, most importantly, I think this change really requires broader consensus than three comments on a page with 48 watchers, especially given its conflict with other parts of the MOS, its use across across thousands of pages, and that a WikiProject explicitly recommends using the style for its articles. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: These are mostly fine points, although I'm not sure what the reference to people seeing the case citations and then "closing their browser" or being completely unable to read the article is supposed to be other than a silly straw man argument.  I have said since raising this issue that I welcome other editors' input on it, but I got only one response (and it was very reasonably supportive).  Feel free to alert other users and have them chime in.  On the infobox note, those are good points to raise, but they raise other questions of their own.  At least one quite large WikiProject (China) has a Project-wide policy or two regarding the use of infoboxes and do not bother with the "at each individual article" business, and if I am not mistaken there are a number of others that do as well.  Thanks for the input, I'm curious to see more thoughts.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case citations in lead 

message: I'd like to revive a thread that went moribund, for having been on the talk page of a draft, in which  raised good points, almost exactly 5 years ago:
This is worth some additional consideration.  More specifically, use a vendor- and medium-neutral citation system (per Bluebook 10.3.3, also found in ALWD 12.17) and addition of a parallel citation to a regional reporter when available (per Bluebook 10.3.1(b), and probably in ALWD somewhere), even if the court system to which the citation pertains doesn't require this.  If even real-world lawyers are doing this, we probably should too, especially since we're writing for a global audience of non-experts, not writing for a specific court with citation rules.
Distilled to an MoS rule it would probably be: — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, at least in the US, PD citations (within the meaning of Bluebook Rule 10.3.3) are usually (if not always) state-specific citation regimes that the state mandates, at least within documents issued by the judiciary. So the last sentence is somewhat contrary to the idea of using PD citation formats.I will say though, I have learned in the years since I made this suggestion that when lawyers from one jurisdiction cite case law from another jurisdiction for documents in their home jurisdiction, it's very common for those lawyers not to follow Rule 10.3.3 and just use the regional reporters. That is, if someone in New York writing a brief for a case in New York wanted to cite an Illinois case as persuasive authority (and Illinois uses a PD citation format), they'd more likely than not cite to the Northeastern Reporter than give the Illinois PD citation. It's my honest belief that Bluebook Rule 10.3.3 is more a normative recommendation than an actual common practice.That said, I think editorially it's probably a good idea to at least provide guidance on how to handle these situations. Really, just about every state has some quirk to its in-state practice that out-of-state lawyers almost never follow, but that in-state lawyers consider important. In Texas, for instance, when citing appellate cases, it's considered essential for the citation to include the appellate district and (in some cases, more importantly) the subsequent appellate history. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, modulo the points that a) the idea is to use PD cites here when available and  (not instead) provide additional ones (even if not PD) that some may find easier to access in their particular circumstances (a bit like providing an archive-url even for links not dead yet), and b) the purpose of our cites is for our readers to find stuff and verify our content, not to mimic what lawyers in a particular jurisdiction are doing, I have no disagreement.  I'll leave it to the legal eagles to work out exactly what should be advised. I just think we should advise something, that it help people find legal source material as much as is practical, and that it default to free ones when possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  12:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of public domain sources is always attractive, but in this case I think that R10.3.3 is just not common enough to warrant our use of it on here.  The use of regional/state reporters (and legal citation format in general) causes enough problems for lay readers as it is.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public-domain and parallel citations 

message: I have a suggestion that I would like to raise for discussion.  Currently, the section on Article Titles only discusses cases. I'm surprised that the article doesn't give any guidance for how to title an article about a statute.  I think we should also provide guidance on that issue.  Full disclosure:  I've been involved in debates on this point previously about articles about particular Canadian statutes, and my personal preference is always to use the short title for the act which is assigned to it by Parliament or the provincial Legislature.  Others have argued that the bill number should be used, because when a bill is up for debate, it's often referred to in the media by the bill number, so that's the name the public associates with it.  That in turn triggers some discussion about Recentism, since the bill number is transient and long-term is not a unique legal citation.  I'm not trying to canvass support for my position on the name of any particular article.  Rather, I came here for guidance and am surprised that there is no mention of this issue here at the Manual of Style.  I also appreciate that there can be considerable variation on the naming of statutes in different jurisdictions, probably more so than in case citation, so it would have to be done consistently with the legal citation styles in each jurisdiction.  It's very easy in Canada, because the custom is that each statute has a long title, and also frequently has a short title, intended for citations, so for Canada I would suggest using the short title assigned by the Parliament/Legislature.  Thoughts?  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: can you give some examples of articles in question?  White Whirlwind  咨  18:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Titles:  Statutes

message: This layout guide says to use Judge/Justice title, however I see in featured articles like Roe_v._Wade it's inconsistently included. Is there a more precise rule I'm missing, such as using the title once in each paragraph and not after? Shushugah (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting catch. I looked at MOS:JOBTITLES (the more relevant Manual of Style guideline) and don't see anything about multiple uses. In my opinion, I think Judge/Justice should be used before every mention, except for plural write "Judges/Justices (once, then) A, B, & C". (While I don't sense that this is something you were questioning, the term "Justice" is used for the member of the US Supreme Court and most (if not all) state/territorial supreme courts, while "Judge" is used for the judges of other courts.) AHeneen (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Canadian/British usage is to use "Justice Smith" on first usage, and then "Smith J." for all subsequent references, just like "Dr" is used for medical doctors. It's the standard abbreviation.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt there is a British usage (i.e. I expect Scotland is different for instance) but in England a High Court judge is referred to in writing as Smith J (unless they have a higher rank, eg Smith MR or Smith CJ) throughout. "Smith J" is read as "Mr Justice Smith" or "Mrs Justice Smith" as the case may be. "Justice Smith" would never be said or written. Francis Davey (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Well, WP doesn't do "Prof[.] Jones" or "Dr[.] Cheng", so this is basically irrelevant.  We should be clear about the role on first occurrence, e.g. "United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia" (or something shorter if the context is already clear), and just "Scalia" afterward.  We write this way about everyone, including presidents and CEOs and senators/MPs, and whatever. PS: The fact that the British press is especially deferential, with things like "Ms. Justice Chenoweth", has nothing to do with how Wikipedia writes. That's a matter to cover as sourced content in an article on forms of address, perhaps.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

text: McCandlish is correct here.  We do not use titles on Wikipedia.  I personally will include a person's "descriptor" (for want of a better term) if it's been awhile in the article since they've been mentioned.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. And we also do it to disambiguate people with the same surname in the same article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title formatting 

message: I stumbled across  today, which is a garish template we apparently use in 126 legal articles to tell readers which citations style we use. I've edited it to not be so garish, but does anyone object to deleting it? It doesn't seem to make sense to include editing warnings in the article text itself. TheDragonFire (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:BBstyle]] 

message: The Australian Guide to Legal Citation whose link is listed as 'dead'  is now at https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2877782/AGLC3.pdf.
Regard Cowdy001 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  - I have just updated the link and copied a few bits out of it for quick ref. (before seeing your note here - but I found what looks like a slightly revised version, 2019). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Guide to Legal Citation 

message: I recently came across a discussion from 2017 () that concerns the lack of standard naming convention for articles about "laws by country". I wanted to bring this to attention in case someone wants to formulate something more consistent. Right now, we have a huge variety of styles:
* (Abortion law, Prostitution law, Gun law in the United States)
* (Child pornography laws in Portugal, Gun laws in the United States by state)
* (Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms, Legal status of cocaine, Legal status of same-sex marriage, Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors; also used for stuff like Legal status of Hawaii, Legal status of the Holy See, Legal status of the State of Palestine)
* (Legality of incest, Legality of cannabis, Legality of bitcoin by country or territory, Legality of bestiality by country or territory)
* (Laws regarding rape, Laws regarding child sexual abuse)
— Goszei (talk)  22:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are subtle differences in their meanings, but do the articles represent those meanings? (Rhetorical question - I don't have time to check them all out!) Regardless, the redirects I mentioned above need fixing, as the only difference is the initial capital in "law". I'll change the British Law one to target Law of the United Kingdom, at least. I would suggest that the intention of the articles beginning "Legality of..." and "legal status of..."  are identical, and I would probably lean towards the latter for all - but it would be good to hear the opinion of a trained lawyer, as there may be other implications I don't know of. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed naming conventions 

message: The section on Canadian legal citations refers to the McGill Guide, but notes that it is proprietary.  However, Queen's University Law Library has provided a summary of the citation methods recommended by the McGill Guide.  Any problem with adding a link to the Queen's University page?  It would provide guidance on how to cite Canadian legal matters.  https://guides.library.queensu.ca/legalcitation-mcgill-9th Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding link to Canadian legal citations 

message: I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Conflicting styles for names of laws, seeking to clarify how to style the names of laws here. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on style for law names 

message: * Talk:Disqualification of Rahul Gandhi#Surname, but who's?
: Pl. note this discussion is not interested in political part of the original BLP articles 
:1) Text presently in the article   There is an alternate sentence suggested in highlighted quote  
:: Here it seems to missing information that above cited conviction is at trial court level and at least two more appeal levels are there. 
:2) One user says   the other user replies  
: Here a user is relying on news media considered RS in general on Wikipedia. But such reliance seem to miss contextual point, Which RS is better in reporting 'legal nuances'? Whether  respective news reporters and analyst have any background in legal reporting or not? 
No doubt both the users in above cited discussion are making their respective arguments in good faith and seem to be experienced editors. Here point is to have easy to understand encyclopedic guidelines on legal nuances.
 Bookku    (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Study of discussion @ Talk:Disqualification of R G 

message: When abbreviating an act (or similar) at first mention, I recommend avoiding "the act", as such: 
: (from )
Instead, give a commonly accepted acronym in parentheses, or no abbreviation.   to refer to a previously mentioned act through the body of an article is fine, but does not need signposting and should be used as normal language allows. Similar considerations should be made for other similar legalisms.
I only bring it up, because I have seen it a lot lately (often in Canadian articles for some reason). It may be a by-product from copy-pasting, or it may be just legal-minded editors writing from what we’re used to. Funnily enough, half the time, the abbreviation isn’t even used later. I am in two minds about adding this guidance to the MOS. First, I don’t want to accidentally suggest that  is never used to abbreviate later, and second, to explain that would take a good chunk of text (as above) for something that has not proved to be terribly problematic. Perhaps something to just keep in mind for now. — HTGS (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And we don't need "(the Commission)" either. This is a bad legalese/bureaucratese habit that has nothing to do with how to write an encyclopedia, but is only about legally defining a shorter stand-in term for one of the parties to an action. And we would capitalize neither "commission" nor "act" used as stand-alone words, for the same reason we don't write "Gutierrez graduated from Havard University in 1987. While at the niversity ...".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You and I are on the same page: . I didn’t mention the uppercase for simplicity, but yeah, the example should probably use lower. — HTGS (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation at first mention