Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for R v R

R v R 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:European Union law#Requested move 16 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European Union law#Requested move 16 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Controlling law

Can we please merge this unreferenced stub, Controlling law, into Choice of law clause, or better yet, both of them into Choice of law? Thanks in advance. Feel free to ping/tag me. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a reasonable suggestion, Bearian, but I'm not sure about it. I had a look at what links to 'Controlling law', and the context of incoming links raises a concerns. Here's the text of all the current incoming mainspace links...

1. Patentable subject matter in the United States

   Similar judicial philosophy was adopted by Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman in Ariosa v. Sequenom, but this approach was firmly rejected by the SCOTUS in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. and it is not the controlling law in the USA.

2. Flood v. Kuhn

   After citing many precedents which had held industries which did not ship goods for sale across state lines to be interstate commerce, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that Federal Baseball and Toolson applied only to baseball and thus Hart controlled in the instant case (followed by a judicial quote)

3. United States v. Throckmorton

   A circuit split developed over which case was controlling during the late 1930s, but the Court declined to resolve it, although it has modified and clarified the rule in several decisions since then; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) has also limited Throckmorton's applicability.

4. Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon

   In 1953 it had held in Wilko v. Swan that three provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 (or, the 1933 Act), which regulates the primary market in which securities issuers sell directly to buyers, were controlling, allowing investors to take their claims to court regardless of what contracts and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) said.

5. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd

   The plaintiff had sued under the Securities Act of 1933, under which any provision mandating that an investor waive their right to sue was prohibited. A 7–2 majority found the latter statute was controlling.

6. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.

   Federal law was controlling, overriding North Carolina law that held contracts such as the one between Mercury and the hospital not to be in interstate commerce and thus under the domain of state law, which in this case would have allowed the hospital to avoid arbitration.

7. Index of law articles — index article, not that interesting, whatever

Apologies in advance for my perhaps hazy understanding of American jurisprudence, but these uses seem quite different from what the article is about. In the first, second and third examples, the term is used to refer to which precedent is controlling (or, as jurists outside the US might say, which precedent is applicable or binding). In the fourth and fifth examples, the term is used in the context of the US Supreme Court deciding which of two federal statutes has priority. In the sixth example, it is used in the context of determining whether US federal law or state law had priority on a question before the court. None of the examples seem to use the term to refer to choice of law.

Currently, an ordinary reader with little or no legal education reading the above articles is likely to be misled if they were to click any of these links hoping to find out what exactly "controlling" or "controlling law" means in context. If we were to redirect it to either choice of law or choice of law clause, they'd still be misled. The preferable answer may be to change these links to better targets, or remove them entirely. (An aside: "controlling law" is a redlink on Wiktionary.) —Tom Morris (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I’m not going to merge it until I get feedback from at least two other users. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

UK Terminally Ill Adults Bills

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Assisted suicide in the United Kingdom#UK Terminally Ill Adults Bills. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am behind two successive proposals to move that article to a more accurate title, with a resulting discussion that can't nail down a solution for a new title but with general consensus that the current title is wrong. Please consider chipping in if you haven't already, while reveiwing both recent discussions for a taste of what has happened so far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Updates to Neil Barofsky

There are updates proposed that may interest members of this project: Talk:Neil Barofsky#December 2024 Updates 9NassauHouse (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Hearing

Notice of hot mess. Can someone please fix this, or can we redirect it somewhere? Bearian (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I've PRODed it because I can't think of a good redirect target. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that this couldn't support a WP:BCA -- there is some general coverage in paralegal textbooks that might suit to tie it all together, and often quite a lot on specific NOH procedures and requirements in specific jurisdictions or subject areas, e.g. for replevin after Fuentes v. Shevin -- but I am convinced that the existing article is worse than nothing, so no objections here. -- Visviva (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Conflict model (criminal justice)

I’ve taught Criminal Justice but haven’t heard of this, but I don’t know everything. Can you please help t source this? Bearian (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Real estate settlement company

This one has been under the radar for years. If you’ve ever been to a closing, these folks can be essential. Can we please source this? Bearian (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Blanked and redirected to Closing (real estate). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Bearian (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Westchester County Bar Association

Here’s another stub that’s been unsourced for 15 years. I have friends who are members. Can you find objective references? Bearian (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

From an initial look, the odds of this meeting WP:NORG seem quite low. Perhaps a better result would be to create a List of bar associations in New York and merge it there? -- Visviva (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Great idea. Can you work on that in the next few weeks? Bearian (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Petition mill

Can somebody please fix the issues identified by tags? I used to practice bankruptcy law, but it's been 32 years. Bearian (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Longitudinal data system

Technically, this is required by law, but it's not actually a law. Is it notable? Bearian (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:H.W. v. France

I've created a draft article on a recent ECHR ruling which has impacts on French law's interpretation of marital rape and divorce. If there is anyone who knows more about this area, I would appreciate if you could give this a look. Thank you in advance! GnocchiFan (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore

Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

A question about legal categories

I've posted an informal request for comments on a very minor categorization issue at R v Elliott, an article about a Canadian case with freedom of expression elements. Editors with an interest in Canadian human rights law, or an interest in the topic generally, are invited to comment in the discussion. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Personal and business legal affairs of Elon Musk#Requested move 31 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Personal and business legal affairs of Elon Musk#Requested move 31 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Claim in bankruptcy

This article has not been referenced in 15 years. I used to practice this area of law, and in fact taught it a few times to paralegals. However, it's been many years. Can somebody please find and add reliable sources to this article? Bearian (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Article bounty: Badush prison massacre

Hello,

WikiProject Human rights is posting its first article bounty! Using article bounties, we aim to improve vital articles about human rights. Currently, there are 2 top-importance and 49 high-importance human rights articles that are rated as stubs. Among them is the article Badush prison massacre, which is the subject of this bounty. You are receiving this message because this WikiProject is listed on that article's page. Editors who improve this article may be eligible for various rewards, or "bounties".

Bounties will be awarded for improving the article in the following ways:

For expanding the article to 500 words: The Minor Barnstar

For expanding the article to 1000 words: The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

For promoting the article to GA: The Human Rights Barnstar

Criteria

• Once the article is at 500 words, if you have contributed at least 1,250 characters on the revision history statistics page, you can reply to this post to receive The Minor Barnstar.
• Once the article is at 1,000 words, if you have contributed at least 3,000 characters on the revision history statistics page, you can reply to this post to receive The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar.
• Once the article is promoted to GA, if you are the nominator, you can reply to this post with a link to the successful GA review to receive The Human Rights Barnstar.
• Contributions must be of sufficient quality. This is subjective, and the bounty coordinator reserves the right to withhold bounties from editors whose contributions are of insufficient quality.

If you have any questions about the bounty or help with the GA process, feel free to message the bounty coordinator, Spookyaki, or reply to this post. If you are unsure where to start, check out the refideas on the article's Talk page.

Spookyaki (talk)

Spookyaki (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

Currently, this project has about ~81 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

1. 1988 Canadian federal budget
2. Civil Rights Act
3. Heckler v. Chaney
4. Human rights in Canada
5. Legal pluralism
6. Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors
7. Legalism (Chinese philosophy)
8. List of ministers of law (Indonesia)
9. Mediation
10. Mikhail Smirtyukov
11. Missouri Executive Order 44
12. Mixed Commission Court
13. Mountain Meadows Massacre
14. Muslim world
15. National Resources Mobilization Act
16. Natural person in French law
17. New York City Criminal Court
18. New York energy law
19. Nikah mut'ah
20. North American Man/Boy Love Association
21. Operation Bajrang
22. Oranga Tamariki Act 1989
23. Order of the Coif
24. Organic Law (Spain)
25. Originalism
26. Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925
27. People v. Muybridge
28. Peremptory challenge
29. Planned Parenthood v. Casey
30. Political offence exception
31. Posadas Hospital Trial
32. Posthumous birth
33. Presidential directive
34. Pro se legal representation in the United States
35. Product testing
36. Proximity of blood
37. Public Service Act 1999
38. Public execution
39. Public law
40. Purge
41. Sam Sheppard
42. Sampling (music)
43. Samsung v. Huawei
44. Samuel Romilly
45. Scientific jury selection
46. Secret Treaty of Dover
47. Secret trusts in English law
48. Senate Judiciary Committee reviews of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States
49. Seventeen Point Agreement
50. Sex offender
51. Shakhty Trial
52. Shaykh Tusi
53. Shurat HaDin
54. Special Criminal Court
55. Spring Valley Race Riot of 1895
56. Statute of Marlborough
57. Strata management
58. Structure of the Federal Reserve System
59. Sullivan & Cromwell
60. Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric
61. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
62. The New Jim Crow
63. Thomas G. Shearman
64. Title IX
65. Treaty of Fontainebleau (1541)
66. Treaty of Paris (1303)
67. Trial by combat
68. Trial of Charles I
69. Uddat al-Usul
70. Undang-Undang Melaka
71. Unenumerated rights
72. United States Declaration of Independence
73. United States v. Rahimi
74. United States war crimes
75. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
76. Vermont vs Hunt (1982)
77. Vidovdan Constitution
78. War on drugs
79. Wartime sexual violence
80. William Henry Melvill
81. Women's suffrage in states of the United States

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Peaceable possession

Can someone please find and add reliable sources do that we can bring this up to a Start class, please? Bearian (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Efforts to impeach Sara Duterte#Requested move 5 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Efforts to impeach Sara Duterte#Requested move 5 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Representative democracy in Singapore

Representative democracy in Singapore 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. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 04:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Open Access and the Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law

Was already available via Wikipedia Library, but nevertheless a helpful addition. Full announcment. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Embezzlement

There is a whole, lightly sourced, section on North Carolina law, of which I am unsure whether it is undue weight. Can someone with more patience than me edit this section? Bearian (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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. Z1720 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Criminal damage in English law

Criminal damage in English law 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. Z1720 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Karl Menninger maybe included in WP:Law?

Karl Menninger was an important psychiatrist who participated often in the overlap between Law and Psychology. He was also a very vocal proponent of Prison Reform, writing a book The crime of punishment. Could his biography be included in the articles of this wikiproject? User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Just do it. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

False billing

Please rate: is this a start article yet? Can you find additional sources as tagged? Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator)#Requested move 22 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator)#Requested move 22 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act#Requested move 24 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act#Requested move 24 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Inviting discussion of titles for overview articles re: court cases involving the Trump administration

Inviting discussion at Talk:Court cases related to Donald Trump's second presidential term#How comprehensive will this article be - will it list all cases? re: the relationship between that article and an older one, Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president. Questions include whether they should be merged, or if the older one should be moved to a new name that parallels the newer one but is limited to his first presidency (or, possibly, if they should both be moved to new but parallel names). Over 100 cases have already been filed since his inauguration, involving DOGE, First Amendment issues, mass federal layoffs, birthright citizenship, immigration, dismantling of USAID, and more. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy (United States)

This poor little stub could use some TLC to expand it, perhaps even from an expert in bankruptcy law. There's an interesting discussion about student loans on the talk page. Bearian (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Ademption

Can we work on this one, too? Or should it be merged somewhere? Bearian (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc.

Yes, I'm going through the law stubs alphabetically, and found this old chestnut. It was revamped 11 years ago and then not much has happened. I was bold and assessed it as a Start article, but with a little more work it will be a B-class article. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Art equity

The article Art equity has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved dictionary definition for 8 years. No reliable sources that I could find define this phrase in this way; some sources refer to it as in representation. No obvious target exists to merge and/ or redirect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Beach bum trust provision

With a little work, this could be a cute DYK. Any takers? Bearian (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Trump v. United States (2024)#Requested move 7 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trump v. United States (2024)#Requested move 7 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Bonus clause

This stub has been tagged as unsourced for 15 years, since its creation. The author has been banned as a sockpuppet, so technically it could be deleted for that reason. However, I think the kernel is useful. Can we please find and add reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a WP:G5 because the creator wasn't banned at the time of creating the article. SilverLocust 💬 04:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that this is necessarily a topic worthy of an article. John M Baker (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Based upon this discussion, I have merged and redirected it to Consideration. Bearian (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

GA assessment for Measures for Justice

Sadly, the creator passed away after he requested an assessment, but before it could be fulfilled. Someone else assessed it as C-class in the past. I assessed it as B-class, with specific and actionable goals on the talk page for a GA. Can someone else please help by giving a required second opinion? Bearian (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Auckland District Law Society#Requested move 24 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Auckland District Law Society#Requested move 24 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare#Requested move 17 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare#Requested move 17 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Question about infobox for US immigration court (Article I) case for Mahmoud Khalil

In Detention of Mahmoud Khalil, Khalil is involved in two legal cases, one before an Article III court (a habeas corpus case) and one before an Article I court (a deportation case before an immigration court). Since there are two relevant cases, we're trying to pay attention to both, though there's a lot more info about the former than the latter. We have the info for the {{Infobox court}} in the habeas corpus case. But I'm having trouble finding {{Infobox court}} info about the immigration court. I know that the case involves Khalil, and the name/location of the immigration court (LaSalle Immigration Court in LA), but can't find a case no. or a judge's name or a case name. Are immigration court cases just called something like "In re Mahmoud Khalil" or "In the matter of Mahmoud Khalil"? Do they get case numbers and dockets? Do immigration courts publicly identify the judge assigned to the case? My impression is that {{Infobox court}} generally isn't used for Article I court cases, but I think it would be helpful to readers of this article if we lay out the two different cases proceeding in different kinds of courts. I'd appreciate guidance about what info should be included in the deportation case Infobox.

Less important: I've seen the habeas corpus case identified both as Khalil v. Joyce and Khalil v. Trump. Joyce was named as the first respondent in the initial petition for a writ, but Trump and Rubio were added as respondents in an amended petition for a writ, with Trump named first. Some of the lawyers (e.g., the ACLU) representing Khalil identify it as Khalil v. Trump, but the judge's order transferring it from SDNY to DNJ, and some other other documents still refer to it as Khalil v. Joyce. Does anyone knows which is the correct title? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There isn't really a case number for the administrative adjudication within DOJ, it's just the person's alien registration number ("A number"), which isn't public info. Nor is the record of proceeding public. DHS's notice-to-appear form uses "In the Matter of" . If it were to lead to a (very rare) published decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals or the Attorney General, that would then be cited as Matter of Khalil, but I doubt that any source would call it that unless and until that happens. An appeal of a final order of removal would be filed in the court of appeals as Khalil v. Bondi (or whoever the AG happens to be), but obviously that wouldn't refer to the agency adjudication. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 04:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess we won't use an infobox for the immigration court case, and we'll just address what's known about the case in the article's text. I'd seen that the A number was included in this BIA ruling that addressed the government's previous use of the same law (perhaps that's because Ruiz-Massieu died shortly after) and had wondered if that was a case number, so thanks for explaining the actual use. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act#Requested move 17 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act#Requested move 17 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beau pleader

The article Beau pleader has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Referenced to a single source. Dictionary definition. Unimproved for a decade. Few sources online Google; they are all dictionary definitions themselves. Obscure legal term not used in 200 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Follow up: This has been redirected in lieu of deletion. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

US Native American law categories

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#US law categories that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Additional questions probably more appropriate for this WikiProject: would it be correct to re-categorize 'acts' currently listed in Category:United States federal Indian policy into Category:United States federal Native American legislation? Also, is it meaningful to have the latter as a subcategory of the former, or should they just link to each other with {{see also}}? Tule-hog (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I think all discussion should probably happen at one place to avoid things getting messy, so I will respond at the indigenous peoples talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies#Requested move 14 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Censorship in Islamic societies#Requested move 14 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Refugee Act#Requested move 13 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Refugee Act#Requested move 13 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Chartered mark

Does anyone have expertise in this area? This stub, of unassessed importance, has been unreferenced for 15 years. Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Difference between detention and arrest in Turkey?

Hello,

Not being a lawyer I am a bit stuck with Talk:Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu#Arrested vs Detained?. Could anyone fix short “Turkey” subsections in the Detention (confinement) and arrest articles? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you'd need a Turkish criminal lawyer or someone who can read Turkish sources to answer that question. In the US, arrest and detention (which could mean a seizure, imprisonment, pretrial detention, or a host of other things) are distinct legal concepts. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Ex contractu

Do you think we should redirect this to Wiktionary? Be bold! Bearian (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the template.

== Proposed deletion of Ex contractu ==

The article Ex contractu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. I asked on if anyone wanted to redirect it, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, but got no volunteers. Run of the mill, obscure legal term.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I redirected it to Ex delicto. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Administrative proceeding

Here's another stub for us to source and expand. This page hasn't been updated or properly sourced in 15 years. Please, rescue it, merge with another article such as Administrative law, or go to WP:AfD. 2025 is a year of decisive action. Bearian (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It was redirected. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Private limited company

Assess class C, in accord with User:Nettrom/sandbox/WikiProject Law stub predictions. This would easily be a B-class (or even a GA) if all sections had inline citations. Can somebody help with this please? Bearian (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore

Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It was denied by another user. I agree with the current assessment of a C-class. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Law of Bulgaria

Can somebody please help to build up this stub, and source it? Bearian (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Almost 3 months later, it's still a stub. I can't read any Cyrillic words. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act#Requested move 27 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act#Requested move 27 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It was moved. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy#Requested move 26 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy#Requested move 26 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir#Requested move 26 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir#Requested move 26 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Matter of Ruiz-Massieu

I have a userspace draft article going on this topic. I'd invite any and all constructive input. Feel free to edit the draft with regular BRD protocols if you wish to do so. I could use a little help with the placement and formatting of the references. Manuductive (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

For reference formatting, see Wikipedia:Inline citation. You also need to dumb this down and explain it in plain English. Legal citations in the first sentence is not accessible to non-lawyers. Don't abbreviate things like SecState either. Additionally, I generally prefer citations to law reviews over news stories when writing legal articles. See, e.g., a featured article I wrote, Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I've searched for "22 I&N Dec. 833" in a couple different places and nothing comes up except the opinion itself. Does any other legal source cite this case? I think it's mostly notable for its coverage in news media. Manuductive (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Have you looked on Westlaw or Lexis? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've added a Merge proposal. I don't think that the case is notable in itself. It didn't get significant coverage at the time, it didn't get significant coverage in the intervening years, and it's only getting small amounts of coverage now because the Trump admin. is trying to use the same law to deport a lot of people on visas and some with green cards. The more significant legal issue is whether the law is constitutional, and that will have be addressed in an Article III court. I've suggested merging it into Mario Ruiz Massieu, and perhaps a bit into Detention of Mahmoud Khalil, where it's already mentioned. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but the notability is established by the coverage in articles like

Nathan, Debbie (March 21, 2025). "The Insidious Doctrine Fueling the Case Against Mahmoud Khalil: How a century of immigration law has evaded constitutional rights". Boston Review. Retrieved March 30, 2025 https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-insidious-doctrine-fueling-the-case-against-mahmoud-khalil/

which go into moderate analysis and do mention that its a precedent decision at the BIA, which is not for nothing. Manuductive (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Most precedential BIA cases are probably not notable, just like most published court decisions aren't notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't have access to those databases, as far as I know. They're not in the Wikipedia library, my public library doesn't provide them, and INAL. Maybe somebody else could look. Lexis Nexis does have a source that probably covers it that popped up:

https://store.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/the-national-security-implications-of-immigration-law-grpussku-us-ebook-32400-epub.html Manuductive (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Try HeinOnline on TWL. They archive legal journals and law reviews. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing came up Manuductive (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This case may not be notable in the legal literature then, but that doesn't mean it doesn't meet GNG for being a prominent case that was written about by historians, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

It's been referenced in a lot of news articles this week, with medium-depth analysis. Manuductive (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but that coverage isn't really likely to be sustained. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I merged the article into the BLP for Mario Ruiz Massieu. Manuductive (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Executive Order 14172#Requested move 7 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Executive Order 14172#Requested move 7 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Featured Article Review notice

I have nominated Treaty of Devol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Suspended sentence

This Mid-important article has issues. I assessed it as a Start, but with all statements sourced reliably, and an image of a person doing community service, and it will be a B-Class article. User:Nettrom/sandbox/WikiProject Law stub predictions assessed it as a C-Class, FWIW. Please help! Bearian (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Casu proviso

The article Casu proviso has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition sourced to a single source and unimproved for about 19 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have boldly merged this into List of writs. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, BD2412! Bearian (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Avocats Sans Frontières

This is possibly the worst article of our Project. Does anyone want to fix it? Or do we need to blow it up and start over again? Should we nominate it for deletion? Bearian (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

DOGE executive orders at WP:RfD

A few weeks ago, I suggested changing the redirects for four Trump executive orders with "Department of Government Efficiency" in their titles from List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump to Department of Government Efficiency (and I now think that it's better to redirect to Department of Government Efficiency § Legal status, which lists the #s and titles and then discusses the structure that arises from the combined EOs). It was relisted to generate more discussion, but there have been no new comments so far. I figured I'd post a notification here in case anyone wants to voice a preference. Here's the link. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Bearian (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Question about SCOTUS infoboxes for emergency docket cases

In a couple of cases about deportations by the Trump admin of Venezuelans and Salvadorans to a prison in El Salvador, the Trump admin. has made emergency appeals to SCOTUS. The articles are J.G.G. v. Trump (about whether it's constitutional to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua without due process, and whether the Trump admin. ignored a court order to bring planes carrying these men back to the US mid-flight) and the other is Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (about whether the Trump admin. must seek the return of a Salvadoran who was mistakenly deported to the Salvadoran prison despite a withholding of removal order). The articles have short sections on SCOTUS actions (a per curiam decision in the first case, an administrative stay in the second case while the appeal is referred to the court). Do people ever add infoboxes for emergency docket cases?

I'm trying to decide whether to add infoboxes for the dockets in these emergency appeals, or if I should just add external links and docket #s at the bottom of the articles, since the Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case is really designed for normal SCOTUS cases where they've granted cert. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, see Tandon v. Newsom, which I recently co-created. – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 21:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If you want to build better articles, an infobox is basically a criteria for GA status. It's also a good place to put essential information in one place for our readers. It's like a head note in West Reports. Bearian (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Morgan Chu

Nine years later, this article still has serious issues. Chu is a patent attorney who has argued some of the most important cases in that specialized field of law, so he's notable. Can somebody please fix the issues with this? Bearian (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Responses to the 2020 Chinese involvement with Hong Kong national security law#Requested move 1 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Responses to the 2020 Chinese involvement with Hong Kong national security law#Requested move 1 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

ASCAP lawsuit request

Hi editors, I made an edit request on the ASCAP talk page regarding a lawsuit that may be of interest to editors here. Any feedback would be appreciated! Cheers Stephanie BINK (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Sidley Austin

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Sidley Austin. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court Ruling needs work

The just decided For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, which is garnering news coverage globally, is in need of expansion. Interested editors are invited to help improve the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not a High Court ruling - it's a Supreme Court ruling. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the amendment. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Prostitution in the State of Palestine#Requested move 18 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prostitution in the State of Palestine#Requested move 18 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore

Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Internet research, 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, 28 April 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:For_Women_Scotland_Ltd_v_The_Scottish_Ministers There is currently a discussion on the Talk page for this case, under the heading Rejected interventions, which may be of interest to this project. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Sylhet District Bar Association

This has been proposed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Musk v. Altman

I created a draft for Musk v. Altman. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable. This is all routine coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The suit is the subject of over one year of detailed reporting in global news media. There is definitely room for expansion. Thriley (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

From what I've seen, they're all primary sources / tick-tock reporting. Is there any in depth analysis of the case other than "this was filed on this day and then the judge ruled X"? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Bangladesh Institute of Legal Development

Prodded by Worldbruce, seconded and assessed as a stub by me. Please review. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thirded. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Preterintention

Preterintention is mostly a steaming pile of dense incomprehensibility, with little puddles of clarity here and there, most likely due to the fact that the author's English level is probably 1 or 2 and he probably indulges in occasional AI translation. I left him this message about it, but it's hard to know where to begin: it's way too late to draftify, so what is to be done? The one thing he gets right is sourcing, which he has been assiduous about (> 100 refs). Any ideas how to improve it? Mathglot (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the third post about this article here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 26#Preterintention and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 26#Preterintention 2. I don't know why this particular legal concept is attracting AI junk and poor writing. It can be redraftified via afd. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I had heard of the topic, first via French criminal law, as it happens, where it is known as dol dépassé, but it seems to be a concept barely covered in English, although there is some Italian, Portuguese, German, and Spanish coverage of it. Unclear if enough to support an article here; perhaps a section or mention in another one. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I see that it's being worked on. I'd rather wait for a few days before merging it. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that it's being worked on is part of the issue, as Mathglot noted. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this needs to be TNT'd or stubified. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Delete it. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Pretty sure it won't be outright deleted. If kept at that title, it will very likely be TNT'd and become a WP:Permastub. A better outcome imho, would be write up a paragraph or two at Mens rea or Culpability about it, and then redirect the page to it. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978

This article needs more work:

1. updates to address the changes by Trump and Musk in 2025,
2. images, including office buildings and/or administrators, and
3. additional secondary sources.

Please help out! Bearian (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Assessment

I've completed the entire 10+ year backlog of requests for assessment. Now all that are left are my 13 requests. Can somebody please help me? Bearian (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Format rights

Following Rinkoff v Baby Cow Productions, we really should have an article about format rights, which, depending on who you listen to, are either a valuable and important form of intellectual property around which a whole industry is based, or a nonsensical idea that doesn't actually exist in law. I've created a sub-stub draft article at Draft:Format rights. — The Anome (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Auto-formatted dates in citation templates

It is now possible for any citation template to automatically format dates. Is this desirable in any of the law citation templates?

The most popular citation templates all automatically format the dates if {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} are present in the article. These citation style 1 (CS1) and 2 (CS2) templates are implemented by Module:Citation/CS1. Auto-formatted dates are also possible in any template via the recently written Module:Auto date formatter. It will either format the date, or if it cannot parse the date, it will output it as written. The module does not have the broad range of error detection, tracking, and warning that CS1 templates offer. Earlier this month, {{cite patent}} was updated to use this module.

Would auto-formatting dates be desirable for any templates in Category:Law citation templates? Some match external standards and style guides where a date format is specified. For example, the Bluebook citations output mdy dates. Others, like {{UN document}}, look like CS1 formatting rather than an external style.

Rather than try to guess where it would be desirable to implement, I thought it would make the most sense to ask here. Also, I can assist or clarify anything in the module's documentation if there's a consensus to add auto-formatted dates to any of the legal citation templates.

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Consistency with article date style is in our guidelines and should be followed. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Right, but I mention it here because some of these are clearly based on an external style and therefore will be using that style's date formatting. I've pushed the changes live at Template:UN document. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Perry v. Cyphers

This stub has been unsourced for 15 years. Can anyone source it? Bearian (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Terry stop

I saw on the front page here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law that "Terry stop needs to be fixed...multiple warnings," but other than updates needed, I don't see a single problem with this. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably an old message. Who knows when the front page of the WikiProject was last substantively updated. (Obviously the page history, but I'm too lazy to look and I'd wager it was long ago.) voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to edit it from my iPhone. Can you please help, Voorts? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Habeas corpus

Let's keep on an eye on this. It's gotten an explosion of page views, obviously because it's in the news. Thanks for your help. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Possession proceedings

The article Possession proceedings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Tagged as NN for 5 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. This actually is a dictionary definition, but could be a dab page. Unless some editor wants to rescue it, it's probably better to delete or redirect somewhere.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The Telephone Cases

I assessed this as a Start-Class article, and as predicted by User:Nettrom/sandbox/WikiProject Law stub predictions; I also requested images. There's no reason for why this important case has such a shabby article. With a bit of work, this could be a B-Class article. Please help out. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:W.M.M. v. Trump#Requested move 17 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:W.M.M. v. Trump#Requested move 17 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Continuance, etc., of Acts, 1735

This law-stub is up for deletion at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Judicature Act (Nova Scotia)

The article Judicature Act (Nova Scotia) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established with substantive sources for generic law

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Non-constituency Member of Parliament

Non-constituency Member of Parliament 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P.R.)

Can somebody please add reliable sources to this stub? Bearian (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Constitutionality

This important article needs more reliable sources. Thanks in advance for helping. Bearian (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Constitution of Rhode Island

Can somebody help add content to the current version, with reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

New page needs review

Hello all. If anyone at this project would be able to help with templates / mechanics / categorization, as well as independent review, on the page I've published on National TPS Alliance v. Noem et al. it would be appreciated. I've had trouble accessing the defendants filings to the court as well as broader context of their strictly legal argumentation (paywall issues). My thanks in advance to anyone who would be able to assist in finding information on their arguments / briefs, as they are currently lacking, and information has largely been pulled from the court ruling and news publications. Thanks again, and all my best - CSGinger14 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I added some categories. Make sure they make sense. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Trade Expansion Act

Can someone update this article, please? Bearian (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian, I mean what needs updating? It allows for the president to make tariff some increases? It's a minor law like the AEA; merely because it's been in the news recently doesn't really change that. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok Bearian (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of IWC meeting in 2006

The article IWC meeting in 2006 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Minutes of a three-day meeting. No secondary sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Brendan Carr (lawyer)#Requested move 23 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brendan Carr (lawyer)#Requested move 23 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Law Enforcement Guide to Truck Driving Safety Standards

Up for deletion, for various reasons. Bearian (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

United States Assistant Attorney General

Please update as tagged. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Declarant

This stub has been an unsourced dictionary definition for decades, darn it! Please add reliable sources. You too could earn points from Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Blanked and redirected. I don't think it makes sense to have a separate article from affidavit. Feel free to revert if you disagree. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Voorts. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Independence constitution

The article Independence constitution has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. Tagged for Notability concerns for 3 months. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Wikipedia doesn't publish original content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Manufacturing clause

Manufacturing clause has been tagged as unsourced for 15 and 1/2 years. It's an historical artifact. It's time to merge, which I'll do without objection next week, to History of copyright law of the United States. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Multiplicity of suits

The article Multiplicity of suits has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. This term is very rarely used in the law.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It was redirected per BLAR. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Voorts! Bearian (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Legal systems in Asia

This has been tagged as unsourced for 15 and 1/2 years, and was proposed to merge for almost 17 years. We already have a banner and a category. Why is this needed? Bearian (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a navigational list. Why does it need references? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Literary property

This has been unsourced for 15 years. Does anyone want to take on this project and add reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 01:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Voorts! Bearian (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

New Hampshire law stubs

The following stubs about New Hampshire law have been tagged as unreferenced for over 15 years:

1. NH RSA Title III
2. NH RSA Title LXIII
3. NH RSA Title V
4. NH RSA Title XXX.

I've cross-listed this with the WP NH. Could someone please add reliable sources to them, or possibly merge them? Bearian (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Prevention of disasters principle

The article Prevention of disasters principle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No reliable secondary sources online Google. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Protective trust

I few weeks ago, I proposed merger if this into Spendthrift trust. What do folks think? Bearian (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Guantanamo military commission#Requested move 20 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Guantanamo military commission#Requested move 20 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Perry v. Cyphers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Perry v. Cyphers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry v. Cyphers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bali Nine

Bali Nine 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. Z1720 (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Collaboration Request

I am hoping WikiProject Weather can collaborate with WikiProject Law, to work to create Draft:Court cases related to tornadoes in the United States! If anyone is interested, please feel free to assist in the creation of the article and/or message me on my talk page! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The claim in the first sentence seems highly incorrect. Force majeure is a principal of contract law, not constitutional law. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, the sources are dictionaries and primary sources. As with MEDRS, I think we do a disservice to our readers when we use newspapers and other non-legal sources to provide information about the law. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: Then can you help correct the first sentence? It was a literal copy/paste from the Act of God article, including that article's sources. That is why I asked for assistance here. I am not familiar that much with legalese, but I am familiar with weather history, so I know which tornadoes led to lawsuits...I just don't know what the legal-aspect of the lawsuits was. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not a topic I'm particularly interested in. I'm just letting you know that I think we should be careful when writing about legal topics on wiki, just like with medical topics. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I am wondering if this meets WP:NLIST. BD2412 T 20:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412: – It does. Several of the lawsuits are fairly notable, for example, a lawsuit originating from the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado received major media attention: AP News, ABC News, NBC News. Edwardsville Amazon warehouse collapse is an article that exists from the aftermath of a different tornado in 2021, and it led to a U.S. House Oversight Committee investigation, followed by six lawsuits. So yeah, it almost certainly meets NLIst criteria. There just aren't that many lawsuits in general that relate to tornadoes, but when there is one, it typically gets some level of media attention. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Having primary source coverage and the fact of lawsuits existing doesn't establish notability for a legal case. Lots of newspapers run an article when someone files a lawsuit; that doesn't make every lawsuit notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I am not questioning the notability of the individual lawsuits, but whether there exists evidence of "tornado lawsuits" being discussed as a group or set in sources outside of Wikipedia, which is what NLIST requires. BD2412 T 22:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, per WP:NLIST directly, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been" Here is three groups of tornado-related lawsuits discussed as a group: "There are currently a number of Western Kentucky tornado lawsuits underway, for various reasons...", Two lawsuits, one wrongful death and the other emotional distress, have been filed...", "Apollo Theatre in Belvidere now faces six lawsuits following March tornado". That is three sources not just discussing one lawsuit, but multiple lawsuits. NLIST notes that is "one accepted reason", not the "only accepted reason", so if there are further NLIST issues, that could be addressed at a larger community discussion, if someone wished to AFD the list once it is completed. But, that is good enough for me in terms of passing NLIST...since NLIST also directly states, "there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists... Since there is no dispute the lawsuits are notable, a list of notable lawsuits related to tornadoes would be complex and decent cross-categorization (science & law), to which there is no present consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I dispute that the lawsuits are notable. See my comment above. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act#Requested move 26 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act#Requested move 26 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Legal history of cannabis in the United States

Legal history of cannabis in the United States 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. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ohidul Islam and others v. The Government of Bangladesh and others#Requested move 6 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ohidul Islam and others v. The Government of Bangladesh and others#Requested move 6 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 00:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Loss on sale of residential property

The article Loss on sale of residential property has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced, Notability, and Globalize for more than 13 years. Appears to give legal advice. I'm not sure if it's even correct after passage of the OBBB. WP:TNT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Engagement letter

Can someone please add reliable sources to this article, which has been unsourced for 15 years. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Accrued jurisdiction

Can someone with knowledge of Australian law please add more information and sources? Bearian (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms#Requested move 13 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms#Requested move 13 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MrAussieGuy (Talk) 05:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Harry Thompson (radical lawyer)#Requested move 17 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Harry Thompson (radical lawyer)#Requested move 17 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Constitutionality

Of all the high-importance articles, this one is probably the one most in need of improvement. Please expand, and find and add reliable sources to this article. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Integrated Entertainment Business Bill#Requested move 18 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Integrated Entertainment Business Bill#Requested move 18 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

casetext.com

Thomson Reuters killed casetext and now there's a bunch of broken citations and external links (eg from Melvin Purvis ). I'm going to go through and replace as many as I can with links to courtlistener.org but this may be something better done using AWB or a similar tool. Thought I'd bring it to this project's attention. Rcfische2 (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

There are almost 2,300 articles citing casetext. I would ask editors who have experience writing scripts what the best way to tackle this would be. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:War on Crypto#Requested move 24 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:War on Crypto#Requested move 24 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Ius privatum

I've proposed a merger into Private law. Please discuss at Talk:Private law. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Whitehouse v Jordan

The article Whitehouse v Jordan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 12 years. This is a sad case but, as held, was not medical malpractice. Lawsuits are not automatically notable. I rarely propose legal articles for deletion, but this is a rare non-notable legal stub.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I've contested this PROD. Sources are cited in the page history if anyone wants to fix this up. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rindos v Hardwick

The article Rindos v Hardwick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged with serious issues, including COI for 15 years. Non-notable defamation lawsuit.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: I kind of feel like this could be merged into Rindos affair. BD2412 T 02:43, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, do it. Bearian (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian:  Done. BD2412 T 20:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Bearian (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Automatic vehicle tracking

The article Automatic vehicle tracking has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 11 years. Someone tried to slip in a dead link. No other language has an article from which to translate. Proposed policies and laws are almost never notable and are subject to WP:CRYSTAL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Alex Stein#Requested move 4 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alex Stein#Requested move 4 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Creen v Wright

This article is up for deletion at WP:AfD. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creen v Wright. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBT-free zone#Requested move 13 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBT-free zone#Requested move 13 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 19:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law

I'm not sure if this book is notable. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Requesting assistance at Police academies by country

There's significant issues with a lack of citations over at Police academies by country. Any help adding citations would be greatly appreciated. Gommeh 🎮 15:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, maybe this weekend. Will tag as under construction. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Islamization in Pakistan#Requested move 14 August 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Islamization in Pakistan#Requested move 14 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Advocacy and incitement

The article Advocacy and incitement has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 10 years. I tagged it as an orphan 13 months ago. This is a compare and contrast essay. Created by a now-banned Sockpuppet.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 72-hour clause

The article 72-hour clause has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Legal stub that has been sourced to unreliable sources for almost 20 years. Terribly misleading; see talk page for more details. WP:TNT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Proposed National Unification Promotion Law

The article Proposed National Unification Promotion Law has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as needing more footnotes for more than 10 years. Proposed bills like this are rarely notable and violate WP:CRYSTAL. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

It was redirected. Bearian (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Sovereign citizen movement

I'm thinking about trying to get the article to GA, but am not really sure how I'd even begin to do that and what needs to be done. Can someone with experience in law GA's help me out? Gommeh 🎮 13:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Drainage and Improvement of Lands Amendment (Ireland) Act 1872

Is this topic notable? Can anyone add reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

History of legal education in Serbia

I've looked at this a couple of times in the past few months, and I'm exasperated. It's a mess. Could someone please fix the issues tagged, or just send it to AfD? Voorts? Bearian (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know anything about law in Serbia, but this looks like OR. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

it does look like OR, but a very basic Google Scholar search turns up some potentially usable sources. Submitted to PROD. Gommeh 🎮 12:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you ... looks like TNT time. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Senior General Counsel

This has been proposed as deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Voorts! Bearian (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It has been Redirected, FYI. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Influence of severe weather on American politics

Hello everyone! I am currently working on a new article for how severe weather influences American politics, which includes how new laws or legislation came about as a result of severe weather. Some of these notable legislation include the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017 and the currently proposed TORNADO Act. The article also serves as a parent article for topics like Political impact of Hurricane Sandy & Political effects of Hurricane Katrina.

If anyone from WikiProject Law is interested in this topic, please feel free to help out. This draft will be a work-in-process for a while, but it serves as a very valuable parent article/topic. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Someone moved my new article to Draft:2025 Florida Turnpike crash.

Someone moved my new article to Draft:2025 Florida Turnpike crash. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Feline Frame-Up: I can't imagine a circumstance where we would have an article on a two-vehicle collision with deaths in the single digits. See WP:NOTNEWS. BD2412 T 18:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a very unusual incident because California gave a commercial driver's license to an illegal immigrant who was very clearly not qualified to drive, and ended up killing 3 people. President Trump has commented on this. So have many other prominent people. Feline Frame-Up (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Trump comments on lots of things that end up being flash-in-the-pan stories (so much so that Wikipedia:TRUMPNOT exists). Wikipedia requires sustained coverage for events (see Wikipedia:Notability (events); if this is still in the news after some months, it may be deemed sufficiently notable for an article at that time. BD2412 T 19:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for First Amendment to the United States Constitution

First Amendment to the United States Constitution 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. Z1720 (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Commencement of a UK Public General Act

Resolved

 – Issue resolved, article amended. Thanks all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

If a UK Public General Act does not have an explicit commencement date, and also does not provide for a commencement date to be subsequently set (for example, by Statutory Instrument), does the Act automatically come into force on the day upon which it receives Royal Assent? Please see Talk:Railways Act 1921#Commencement and reply there. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rembrandt Custodians Ltd v Pro-Drill (Auck) Ltd

The article Rembrandt Custodians Ltd v Pro-Drill (Auck) Ltd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 10 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Lacks significant coverage. No hits on Google News, Newspapers, or Scholar. Two very passing mentions in Google Books.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Grooming gangs scandal#Requested move 4 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Grooming gangs scandal#Requested move 4 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 00:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Mills v R

Could someone familiar with Canadian law please add reliable sources to this article? Bearian (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It still has only 1 reference. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Scandals Erased, Editors Paid: How Big Law Firms Try to Control Their Wikipedia Pages

Article from Law.com, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I am interested in this, but not enough to register for a website to read an article. Can you give us the gist (and in particular, do they identify any firms specifically engaged in such practices)? BD2412 T 17:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412 How about ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that works, thanks! BD2412 T 18:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Public Interest Disclosure Act

This is essentially a dab page with two entries. If you agree with me, please turn this into a dab page with two hat notes. If you disagree, then please discuss. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want me to take the blame do it, also let me know. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Denham v Midland Employers' Mutual Assurance Ltd

Can someone please source this article? I see it's cited on Google Books and Scholar. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Another UK case that needs sources is Erven Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Melhem B. Maalouf

The article Melhem B. Maalouf has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 9 years. No other language has a sourced article from which to translate. No sources on Google, news, newspapers, books, or scholar. While appellate judges are presumed notable, without evidence, this might be original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Requesting RFC participation

Asking editors to please come and participate in an important RFC here. Helper201 (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Revised Statutes

Please add reliable sources to this stub. Bearian (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Help requested at Venezuelan boat strike article

Someone else wrote most of this section, but I just merged in content from CSIS. The article is getting a lot of traffic; might someone please check over the Legality section? I had to overquote since not qualified to write in my own words.

• 2025 United States strike on a Southern Caribbean boat#Legality

Please edit directly as needed (over-my-head alert). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Voorts you helped once in the past on a Venezuelan article; would you have time to look at this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it could use better sourcing / POVs (more legal scholars/practitioners, less think tanks and journalists), but it's okay. I can't opine on whether each of the opinions are due or whether the section is balanced because I haven't dug into this topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Voorts; I was also worried if there were any obvious legal mistakes -- I don't have time to expand or work further on content there, but don't want to leave anything mistaken in the legal description that I merged in after an editor dropped the source in with no content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Sound recording copyright

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sound recording copyright § Article scope and terminology differences, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. The discussion is about how to address jurisdictional differences between "copyright" and "related rights" in sound recordings/phonograms. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Legal systems in Asia

I'm not sure if this list works. It's been unsourced for 15 years. Should we delete it? Can you add reliable sources? Discuss. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems somewhat redundant for purely navigational purposes as categories and the template {{Asia topic|Law of}} cover this. Delete seems an option in its current iteration, but there is certainly a wide body of literature on law in Asia generally speaking. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

What would a source even look like for this list? A citation to a geographical reference verifying that each country is in Asia? In its current form, this seems about as self-substantiating as it is possible for a list to be. That said, I don't think anything of encyclopedic value would be lost by deleting it.

A clearer idea of the originally intended scope of this list/article can be seen by looking at the last version before uncited statements were purged. I don't think that text is salvageable, but it would certainly be possible to write a similar sort of overview based on reliable scholarly sources. Of course that would remain equally possible even if this list was deleted. -- Visviva (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Would either of you like to send this to AfD? A deletion might be controversial. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

After 4 weeks, I think this discussion is going nowhere. Can we wrap it up and archive this? Bearian (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Fructus naturales

Can somebody please add reliable sources to this stub, which has been unsourced for 15 years. You may earn points at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, JoeNMLC. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Karen Todner

The article Karen Todner has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NN lawyer; WP:Promo; WP:soapbox

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback Request for Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo

Hello, I have created a draft article for Sam Bayat Makoo (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) about a Quebec-licensed attorney and author specializing in immigration law and citizenship by investment programs. The draft uses independent, reliable sources such as *Gulf News*, *Caribbean News Global*, *The Corporate Immigration Review*, and *Le Barreau du Québec* to establish notability per WP:NBIO. No self-published sources (e.g., LinkedIn or Bayat Group website) are used. I am seeking feedback on the draft’s content, sourcing, and neutrality to improve it before submitting to Articles for Creation. Please advise if additional sources, clarifications, or changes are needed to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you! InsightAdventurer (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

What is your relationship with Mr. Bayat Makoo? Did you use an LLM to generate any of that draft or your comment here?

No self-published sources (e.g., LinkedIn or Bayat Group website) are used This is not true. Several of the sources cited are bios of him or his firm that were clearly written by the firm or someone associated with it. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @voorts, for your questions and feedback. To clarify:

- My relationship with Mr. Sam Bayat Makoo: I have no personal, professional, or financial relationship with him or his firm. I'm an independent editor interested in notable figures in immigration law and historical contexts (e.g., his background related to the Bayat tribe in Iranian history, which I'm researching with independent sources but haven't added yet). I reached out to him via email for some background info during research, but I didn't use any of that in the draft since it's not independent. I've relied only on public sources.

2- Use of LLM: I did not use any language model (LLM) to generate the draft or my comments. The content was written by me. However, since English is my second language, I used Grammarly for grammar corrections. For some sentences, I used AI tools to translate my ideas from Persian to English to ensure accurate phrasing. For research, I searched manually but sometimes used AI to clarify ambiguities in results (e.g., to understand if a source meets Wikipedia's reliability standards). I also consulted AI for advice on Wikipedia policies (like reliable sources, verifiability, and notability for living persons), alongside reading the policies myself on en.wikipedia.org (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NBIO, WP:BLP) and fa.wikipedia.org, to avoid misunderstandings due to language differences.

3- Sources: I apologize if some sources appear non-independent. I thought they were reliable media outlets. I've now reviewed them and will remove any that seem promotional or firm-associated (e.g., profiles that read like company bios). Could you please specify which ones are problematic so I can address them precisely? I'll update the draft with more independent sources, like legal publications, and ensure compliance with WP:42 and WP:NBIO.

I appreciate your help in improving the draft! InsightAdventurer (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

All of the sources are problematic. They all appear to be paid posts or are otherwise not reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Voorts, for your continued feedback and for reviewing the sources. I completely understand your concern that they may appear promotional or not fully independent, and I apologize if the current ones still fall short of WP:RS standards. After your previous comments, I removed sources like Gulf News, Caribbean News Global, and IMI Daily, and limited the draft (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) to what I believed were the most reliable: *The Corporate Immigration Review* (a legal publication by Law Business Research), *Le Barreau du Québec*'s directory, and the *Mona Shah & Partners Podcast* (an independent interview on CBI controversies).

However, I recognize that even these may not provide the deep, independent coverage needed for notability per WP:NBIO. I've conducted additional searches (e.g., on Google Scholar and News for independent reviews or articles about Mr. Bayat or his books), but unfortunately, no new reliable sources emerged, most results loop back to firm-related content. This suggests the subject may not meet Wikipedia's threshold for a standalone article at this time.

I'll pause further edits and consider withdrawing the draft or merging it into a related page (e.g., on CBI programs) if appropriate. If you have suggestions for truly independent sources or ways to improve, I'd greatly appreciate them. Thank you for helping ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies! InsightAdventurer (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Centre de Coordination de la Lutte Anti-drogue en Méditerranée

Same old line ... please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section

This article is close to WP:TNT. Can someone rescue this, or should we WP:TNT it? Bearian (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me why there should be an article for TIPS. None of the other ABA sections have articles, as far as I can tell, and there is no indication of notability in the article. John M Baker (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree. I would just BLAR to the ABA. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Bearian (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Schlep ban controversy#Requested move 15 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Schlep ban controversy#Requested move 15 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 23:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC on BLPCRIME

There is currently an RfC on WP:BLPCRIME at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons § RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

List of largest United States–based law firms by profits per partner and 11 similar lists now at AfD

This multi-article AfD could use some help:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United States–based law firms by profits per partner

This AfD bundles together the following articles for deletion with the rationale "All of these lists aren't individually notable.":

1. List of largest United States–based law firms by profits per partner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2. List of largest law firms by profits per partner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. List of largest United States–based law firms by head count (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
4. List of largest United Kingdom–based law firms by revenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5. List of largest Canada-based law firms by revenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
6. List of largest Europe-based law firms by revenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
7. List of largest Japan-based law firms by head count (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
8. List of largest China-based law firms by revenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
9. List of largest law firms by revenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
10. List of Malayan law firms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
11. Big Five (law firms) in South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
12. List of law firms in Uganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks in advance for your help. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York v Rank Organisation Ltd

The article Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York v Rank Organisation Ltd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 6 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. The edit history reveals original research and vandalism. Does not appear to be a notable legal case.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This has been deprodded and 2 notes added. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Correspondence with the Pretender Act 1697

Not urgent, but this should be sourced or merged somewhere. Bearian (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:September 2025 Philippine protests#Requested move 5 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:September 2025 Philippine protests#Requested move 5 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Law enforcement in Portugal

The article Law enforcement in Portugal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 12 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Prior notice given to appropriate projects.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 08:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes has an RfC

List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TRCRF22 (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of 2005 Ram Mandir attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2005 Ram Mandir attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for input: Murder of Jong-Ok Shin article review

Hi everyone,

I've opened a detailed discussion on the Talk page of Murder of Jong-Ok Shin regarding significant issues with neutrality, sourcing, structure, and article length. The page currently gives disproportionate weight to innocence-campaign material and alternative-suspect theories, relies on several weak sources (IMDb, YouTube uploads, advocacy sites), and exceeds 200 kB in length.

I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup and rebalancing plan that aligns with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE. Editors familiar with crime-related biographies, legal-case coverage, or sourcing standards are invited to review and comment on the Talk page discussion: → Talk:Murder of Jong-Ok Shin#Request for comprehensive review: content balance, sourcing, structure, and policy compliance

Any input or assistance from experienced project members would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, 66.54.123.6 (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Frivolity!

This is kinda silly and I know you all are busy but if anyone in the U.S. knows how to link to today's defamation-lawsuit dismissal opinion by Judge Jeannette A. Vargas, Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud#External links would love to hear from you. Pls and thank you in advance. jengod (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve added a cite with a link. If you want to put that in the external links section, go ahead. John M Baker (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You crushed it. TYSM. jengod (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Waite v North-Eastern Rly Co

I don't think this case has any value, except perhaps to a legal history professor. If you disagree, please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Child's Right to Nurse Act

The article Child's Right to Nurse Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 6 years. Appears to have never passed after 20 years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Joênia Wapixana#Requested move 15 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joênia Wapixana#Requested move 15 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot#Requested move 5 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh assassination plot#Requested move 5 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)