Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

Need help and comments with Sex offender registries in the United States

Neutrality of Sex offender registries in the United States has been questioned. Some editors think it currently reads like advocacy and is promoting legislative reforms. Deleting the whole article has been discussed. Relevant discussion and link to NPOV notice can be found here. This far, only few editors have provided comments. The article cites 44 peer reviewed studies, one book compiling studies on these matters, a hand full of studies by government entities, two reports by the Human Right Watch, news and other relevant sources. Therefore, I think, if the article has serious NPOV issues it can be saved by rewriting as, on it's core, it is healthy due to strong list of quality RS. Currently article is rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. Comments and help in achieving neutrality is badly needed. Thank you. ViperFace (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability question

Are all Executive Orders per se notable? See Draft:Executive Order 13693 for reference. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, E.O.s are not inherently notable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Justice Scalia" or just "Scalia"?

After the first mention of a Judge or Justice in an article, should we continue to refer to them as "Justice Doe," or simply by their last name alone? For example, which of these two passages (from a hypothetical article) is correct:

• Example 1: Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Plaintiff v. Defendant. Justice Scalia held the defendant was liable for negligence. Although he conceded it was a close case, Justice Scalia ruled that the defendant breached her duty of care.
• Example 2: Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Plaintiff v. Defendant. Scalia held the defendant was liable for negligence. Although he conceded it was a close case, Scalia ruled that the defendant breached her duty of care.

On one side of the argument, WP:LASTNAME states that individuals should be "referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix" after the first mention of their name in an article. On the other side of the argument, WP:HONORIFIC states that honorifics should be used when the honorific "is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it." In legal scholarship, Supreme Court justices and other lower court Judges are often referred to as "Justice Smith" or "Judge Jones," even if their name has been introduced earlier in the article (see, for example, this article). Consequently, I am inclined to use "Justice Douglas" or "Chief Justice Rehnquist," even if their name has been mentioned earlier in the article. What are your thoughts? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It does sound somewhat disrespectful or even contemptuous to say Scalia after the first time, especially repeatedly. In opinions for the court, as contrasted with a dissent, it is easy to say "the Court said 'such and such'" and thus dodge the problem.
  There is a similar problem for professors, whom some Wikipedians think should never be so designated. I think that in their case, as well as judges, the first time one should use the honorific and after that, just try to be graceful. For professors, one honorific at the beginning is probably enough. For Justices (like Scalia), I would try to avoid sentence formations in which they are called just Scalia.
  I doubt that Chief has to be repeated, though.
  What is law review practice? What do NY Times and Wall Street J do? Those may provide guidance.
  PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we generally don't use honorifics. The "commonly attached" provision is probably more for names like Lord Byron. bd2412 T 21:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the "commonly attached" provision does indeed apply to Judges and Justices; the honorifics "Judge" and "Justice" are universally used in legal sources when discussing judges and justices, and even the press usually uses the honorifics in articles. However, I don't agree that the provision applies to "Chief Justice" or "Chief Judge", which are honorifics that are not nearly as widely used. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think using the surname only for successive uses should be preferred. It's not contemptuous to apply the same rule of style here that we would to anyone else with few exceptions, and there's not going to be any confusion as to who Scalia is once you've already identified him in the article as "Justice Antonin Scalia". We can use singular titles such as "the Chief Justice" for repeated references, however, just as we would "the President"; obviously saying "the Justice" wouldn't work when there are eight at a time (apart from it just looking odd). postdlf (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be limited to "Scalia". See WP:SURNAME. Law review practices and the style guides of newspapers are not pertinent; we follow Wikipedia's own Manual of Style. TJRC (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that "[l]aw review practices and the style guides of newspapers are not pertinent" in our analysis. Wikipedia's MOS provides exceptions to general rules for surnames when nearly every available source in the English Language deviates from Wikipedia's MOS conventions. One example is the exception in WP:HONORIFIC when honorifics are "so commonly attached to a name" that readers would expect to see the attached honorific. Another example is WP:NICKNAME's recommendation that authors use the "name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources." In any event, the guidelines in WP:SURNAME and WP:HONORIFIC are designed for biographical articles, and there are no existing guidelines for legal articles (at least none that I could find).

Just as biographical articles reflect common practices in biographical scholarship, legal articles should reflect common practices in legal scholarship. The Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, and the University of Chicago Law Review all refer to Supreme Court justices as "Justice ___" every time the justice is mentioned in an article. Likewise, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal follow the same rule. Our MOS should not be out-of-step with the common linguistic conventions in legal scholarship. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You put that very well, Notecard. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

How would this interact with other title usage? If an article discusses both Scalia and Obama, do we need to use both "Justice Scalia" and "President Obama" throughout? bd2412 T 16:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

BD2412, I think the answer would depend on whether the term "President" is "so commonly attached" to the surname in english sources that readers would expect to see "President Obama" rather than "Obama." In any case, it looks like the guidelines in WP:SURNAME and WP:HONORIFIC are designed for biographical articles, so I'm not sure there is an equivalent applicable provision of the MOS for legal articles. It looks like legal existing legal articles are divided: some use "Justice ___" every time they refer to a justice, some don't, some simply refer to "the Court," and some employ a mixture of all three. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of "the Court" is a different issue, as that should always be used as the "speaker" of a majority opinion, which by definition is the Court's opinion. A justice "delivers" it (if it is not per curiam), and may in fact have authored most or all of it (or their clerks did, and/or the other justices who joined it and maybe had editing suggestions). But if that opinion commands a majority, it represents the words of the Court as an institution rather than any individual justice. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is a different issue. I was simply attempting to illustrate that there is no existing convention among SCOTUS articles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That points up the problem with the "walled garden" approach. Every field has its style but as TJRC noted, we follow WP:MOS in WP. Point #3 in our useful essay for experts discusses this too Wikipedia:Expert_editors#Advice_for_expert_editors. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you guys keep saying that it's the Wikipedia way to say just "Scalia," instead of explaining why it makes sense to say "Scalia" instead of "Justice Scalia"? The argument against is that it makes better sense to do the opposite, as incidentally is evidenced by the practice of the rest of the well informed world (NYT. WSJ, YLJ, HLR, etc.). Why don't you explain why that view is wrong?

Also, the type of article in question is almost 100% write-ups of SCOTUS decisions. How many (or what %) of WP articles on SCOTUS cases mention both Scalia (or another Justice) and Obama? (If you want an example, why not pick the better [and less hypothetical] one of Scalia plus a professorial or lay commentator? Even there, however, what's the problem with saying "Justice Scalia," on the one hand, and blogger "Gene Quinn" [or just "Quinn"] on the other?) PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

b/c this is Wikipedia. Please do read the bullet of the EXPERT essay I pointed to. MOS is the product of lots and lots of community discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Jyt, you are just repeating yopurself (is that unusual?). You are not explaining WHY it is a good idea. You just say "that's how WE do it." PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Praceptor this is something I've been trying to communicate to you for a while, yes. This is a "constitutional law" issue within WP. The policies and guidelines of WP are expressions of the WP:CONSENSUS of the community, worked out over a very long period of time. WP:CONSENSUS is the bedrock foundation of this institution, and you have to respect the precedents established by it - the policies and guidelines. (Why must you? By contract -- because the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, to which you agree every time you edit here, state that "You adhere...to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities." You have already agreed to try to understand and respect the way this place works.) WP:MOS especially has been the subject of hellish long battles as people from different disciplines have fought to to do things their own way. Like EXPERT says: "Wikipedia has its own article titles policy and manual of style, geared toward making the encyclopedia as reader-friendly as possible to a broad, general audience, without dumbing down content. These Wikipedia-internal best practices are a careful balance of compromises, and they generally do not match in every detail what is preferred in any particular discipline, since stylistic preferences vary in ways that conflict between different fields. Experts are already familiar with having to adapt their writing style for whatever publication to which they are submitting material, and should approach Wikipedia with the same mindset." Please respect MOS, and the other policies and guidelines. Thnaks. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP:—you need to remember that Jytdog's interpretation of several policies have been suspect, such as original research in legal articles, the use of a citation style, etc. His interpretation of other issues are also, at times, suspect. Different areas of Wikipedia have differing expectations. For example, infoboxes. Some projects, like SCOTUS, want infoboxes in the articles, some projects, like Classical Music, almost prohibit infoboxes. So despite what he claims, there is a wide variance in what is and is not acceptable.

Next, and I'm sure your more clearly aware of this than I, the WP Terms of Use constitute browserwrap and likely unenforceable for the same reasons pointed out in In re Zappos, 893 F.Supp.2d 1058 (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2012). His attempt to claim that they are a binding contract is just a layman's opinion.

If there is local consensus to use "Justice" before the name of a SCOTUS justice, that's what we'll do. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

what was that stuff that Robert Bolt put in the mouth of Thomas More? something about chopping down the forest to chase down the devil...."And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" that's it. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead of made-up dialogue by a writer of fiction, let's use his real words: I must say, extreme justice is an extreme injury: For we ought not to approve of those terrible laws that make the smallest offences capital, nor of that opinion of the Stoics that makes all crimes equal; as if there were no difference to be made between the killing a man and the taking his purse, between which, if we examine things impartially, there is no likeness nor proportion. Thomas More, Utopia, 1516. We should not be so focused on the minutia of the rules that we forget that we are here to create content. GregJackP Boomer! 00:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, your response does not directly address the original question in this thread. I think we all agree that the MOS should guide article creation, but we are trying to figure out whether the MOS permits authors to call Justices and Judges as "Justice Smith" or "Judge Williams" the second or third time they are mentioned in the article. I opened this discussion to see if anyone could identify a relevant portion of the MOS that could provide guidance for this question -- if you can identify a portion of the MOS that supports one side of the argument, then by all means let us know.

I am not convinced that there is an existing portion of the MOS on-point because the portions of the MOS listed above deal with titles and biographical articles, rather than legal articles. Assuming, arguendo, that WP:HONORIFIC is applicable here, my impression of the provision is that it directs authors to follow the convention of nearly every English language source and use "Justice Scalia," even if the Justice has been mentioned earlier in the article.

Otherwise, I concur with PraeceptorIP's remarks about respecting well-established conventions and GregJackP's remarks about respecting subject-specific variety within wikipedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Both PraeceptorIP and Notecardforfree are correct, and although I'm sure I've not used the honorific in articles I've written, I should have. We should follow standard legal scholarship in legal articles. GregJackP Boomer! 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal thrillers appropriate for project?

Hi wikilegaleditors, browsing through the talk pages of John Grisham novels i noticed that they don't have the wikiproject law banner. Just wondering if it is okay to add the project to these and other fiction books of this type? thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider works of fiction to be law topics unless they are of the type that gets positive notice from the legal community as particularly good depictions of the workings of the law. bd2412 T 03:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Grisham, while entertaining, is writing fiction. It, as BD2412 states, is not a law topic. My Cousin Vinny is a movie about the law, but is not part of Project Law. GregJackP Boomer! 03:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• I concur with BD2412 and GregJackP that Grisham novels are outside the scope of this project. If there was a non-fiction book that depicted real people associated with the law or real cases, then it might be worthy of inclusion in this project (e.g. Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine), but fictional accounts of fictional legal proceedings are a different matter. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt definitive replies, that is one little wikitask i will not be doing, often i will leave a kitten of thanks but in this case a smilie may be more appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Vosburg v. Putney

I am struggling to understand how the current version of the article is a better format than this version. The previous version was written as running text; the current version is a collection of bullet points. I don't think we format articles this way. bd2412 T 03:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I have reverted the addition of similar styling by the same editor at Garratt v. Dailey. bd2412 T 04:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

BD2412, I agree with you that the article should be written in the form of a narrative, rather than bullet points. The current version should definitely be edited to conform to MOS:PARAGRAPHS's guidelines for "paragraphs of running prose." It looks like the author copied and pasted the current version from an outline. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Add "Annual Tuition" field to Template:Infobox law school

A discussion is taking place about whether to add an "Annual Tuition" field to {{Infobox law school}}. This page within the scope of this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark

There is a discussion on whether 0.1% of the population not being citizens by birthright (American Indians) requires the removal of the phrase "practically everybody" from the lead of the article. GregJackP Boomer! 08:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:William J. Brennan, Jr.#Keep or remove list of majority opinions between 1957 and 1961?

There is a discussion about whether the article for William J. Brennan, Jr. should include a partial and incomplete list of his opinions, written between 1957 and and 1961. Comments from editors would be appreciated. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Is Draft:Samuel Jacob Stoljar notable? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Don't know, all of the refs are bare URLs and I'm not going to spend the time going to each one. Onel5969 said that it is not, I trust his judgment on the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Possible compromise approach: Why don't you ask the person who drafted the proposed article to convert all the bare URLs to the format: Author, [URL Title], citation (e.g., 12 Yale L.J. 34 (1981)) ? If the author won't, ignore him/her. If the author does, make a quick-look evaluation based on title and journal; read only if necessary. (??) - PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You put it much clearer than I did. FoCuSandLeArN, ask if the drafter (or you) will do that, and I'll be happy to look at it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if they do. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

NS Justice System

As I intend to write an article about Judiciary in Nazi Germany 1933-45, I kindly ask for your support. My native language is German and the German version will be entitled NS-Justiz. But I still can't decided about the English title. Please voice an opinion, here are the choices:

• NS Justice System
• Nazi Justice System
• NS Judiciary
• Nazi Judiciary

Maybe You have an even better proposal. My draft can be seen in my sandbox. Regards --Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Meister und Margarita, thanks so much for taking on this project! At least in the United States, I think most people don't realize that the abbreviation "NS" stands for "National Socialism," and I think the majority of readers are also unaware that "National Socialism" is synonymous with "Nazism." Therefore, I would recommend using the title "Judiciary of Nazi Germany." I think many articles about national judiciaries follow the same naming convention (see Judiciary of Germany and Judiciary of France). If you need help with the drafting process, please let me know (unfortunately, I don't speak German). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestion which seems very appropriate. You are free to add information to my draft (and/or to correct my mistakes). I estimate that it will take at least two months to finish the article . Thanks again and I will come back to your offer. By the way, I was flabbergasted by the fact that the article Judiciary of Germany doesn't even mention the Nazi period.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Meister und Margarita: I found little happened to the courts themselves during the Nazi period. This seems to disturb many Germans, that Germany has effectively used the Nazi courts, hell even the same professional judges, before and after the Nazi period. Yes, obviously the lay judges were Nazis, because they were short term appointments chosen by the ruling political parties (again, not because of the Nazis). The GVG was enacted in 1877, and the courts look much the same 1877-current, with the major changes before and after the Nazis (but relatively few changes *to the courts* and nothing unprecedented, other than the lay judges, by the Nazis). All your article says is that the courts enforced the law. That's not really WP:Notable, that's a court's purpose, it's definitive. The law changed, the courts applied the law. If the article is about what is different about the courts during the Nazi period, then it would be what laws they applied and who they applied those different laws to, and when, but that's not really about the courts so much as it is about the Nazis and their laws. Int21h (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:JCW needs help!

WP:JCW, a compilation of all |journal= parameters of citation templates has recently updated. Several law and law-related publications are heavily cited, and lack articles on them. Any help on writing those would be greatly appreciated (and we even have some guides at WP:JWG (journals) and WP:MWG (magazines), to help editors create these articles). I took the liberty of compiling a list, although I'm no expert on the topic, and I'm only basing myself on the titles of these publications. I could be missing a few, or include things not really related to the project, so feel free to edit the below list.

Note that for some of them, it might be preferable (e.g. if they fail WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG) to expand the articles on their publisher/associated societies with a section on the journal/magazine, and create a redirect to that section, rather than create a standalone article. But I leave that to WP:LAW editors to decide. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic (185th)
• Food Policy (949th)
• Hansard House of Commons Debates (89th)
• Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties (497th)
• International Journal of Constitutional Law (701st)
• International Journal of Legal Medicine (392nd)
• Justice Quarterly (834th)
• Law and History Review (432nd)
• Marine Policy (949th)
• Malaya Law Review (593rd)
• Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law (791st)
• The Review of Politics (350th)
• Singapore Academy of Law Journal (239th)
• Singapore Journal of Legal Studies (81st)
• Singapore Law Gazette (566th)
• Singapore Law Review (53rd most-cited missing!)
• Women of the Oklahoma Legislature (832nd)

Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, is not a journal, it is a multi-volume book edited by Kappler and published about 1904-1920 or so. GregJackP Boomer! 16:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Like mentionned above, this is based on a compilation of all the |journal= parameters of citation templates. Misuse of templates lead to these oddities. As a series of books/monographs though, it could still be considered notable under WP:NJOURNALS/WP:NBOOK, and get an article created for the series, e.g. Mens Sana Monographs. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC

An RfC, Should this biography include commentary or reactions from politicians?, has been posted at the talk page for Kim Davis (county clerk). Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 17:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Proprietary lien - unclear definition

Hello Wikilawyers! There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Proprietary lien regarding the redirect proprietary lien, which currently targets maritime lien. There is a brief definition of a proprietary lien in the lede of the target article, but it's not clear whether all proprietary liens are maritime liens, or vice versa, or some other situation. If you can help clarify in the redirect discussion or by editing the article, your help is greatly appreciated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notification

A new discussion has been started at: Talk:Sodomy#POV and "Sodomy". Comments appreciated. GregKaye 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hywel Dda Edit-a-thon

A Hywel Dda Edit-a-thon will be held at The National Library of Wales of October 16th, 2015 to focus on improving content relating to Hywel Dda, the Laws of Hywel Dda, and their legacy. Everyone is welcome! Jason.nlw (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Criminal Code of Canada

"Criminal Code of Canada" has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Criminal Code of Canada ; also the article itself is in somewhat poor shape, with unusual massive notes instead of being paragraphs, lack of inline references, mixtures of external links and refs, and weird external links sitting in the middle of the page. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we say that Volkswagen has acted illegally?

Following some discussion by non-lawyers at Volkswagen emissions violations, a discontinuity of opinion has emerged over whether we can state in Wikipedia's voice that Volkswagen has acted illegally in its handling of emission control devices on its TDi diesel engines. Discussion has groan abusive and heated and I feel we may need some guidance. I have raised an RfC on the talk page, and I invite contributions from all. --Pete (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

At this moment in time has it been found guilty of any crime? GiantSnowman 10:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There have been no court proceedings as yet, though undoubtedly some will commence in due course. The EPA has issued a notice of violation - that's all. --Pete (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not state Volkswagen acted illegally at this point. WP should describe the acts in the same manner the reliable sources describe them. Minor4th 19:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Malice murder

Given the recent publicity around Kelly Gissendaner's execution I have started a quick article on malice murder - any US/Georgian legal experts would be appreciated in helping expand and clarify exactly what it is, and how it is different from felony murder (my limey brain can't work it out). GiantSnowman 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Georgia has a bifurcated homicide statute where the state may bring charges for (i) malice murder (i.e. murder committed with malice (law)) and/or (ii) felony murder. This is codified at O.C.G.A. § 16-5-1 (2010). A quick search found this nice explanation from Smith v. State, 258 Ga. 181, 183 (2) (366 S.E.2d 763) (1988): "A single homicide can result from facts sufficient to support both malice and felony murder. Malice is not an element in a trial for felony murder but the presence of malice does not bar a felony murder conviction. Likewise, the existence of a felony is not an element in a trial for malice murder but its presence is no bar to a malice murder conviction. When the elements of malice and an underlying felony both exist in a murder case, the law does not preclude verdicts of guilty of both malice and felony murder. However, where there is a single victim, the defendant may be sentenced on either but not both. [Cits.]." Therefore, It might be helpful to make the focus of the article about Georgia's homicide statutes in general, rather than "malice murder" specifically (cf. [[Category:U.S. state criminal law]] for existing state felony murder articles). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would recommend removing malice murder from Template:Homicide, because I think most people will confuse the Georgia crime of "malice murder" with the more general concept of murder committed with malice (law). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Schmerber v. California Featured Article Candidate

Schmerber v. California is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Schmerber v. California/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft?

I've started a discussion over on the Talk page of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft about the article's weaknesses and proposed a new draft to update and expand the entry's content. I should note that I was paid to prepare this draft as part of my work at Beutler Ink, by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Because of this conflict of interest, I will not be editing the article myself. Instead, I am seeking input from other editors, who I hope will review my work and make changes as deemed appropriate. I'm open to any suggestions others may have about my draft and will keep an eye on this page and the Talk page for any responses. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help with Monsanto legal cases

Monsanto legal cases is an article that is in really sorry shape; it is organized poorly; coverage of various legal cases is inconsistent and probably undue, the lede leaves much to be desired, and it could use some eyes from those of us who know how to write about legal issues. This article has been the subject of much controversy, and I believe some of the controversy can be tamped down if we get some actual legal writers over there to get this article in shape and to evaluate the sources and so forth. Thanks. Minor4th 21:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Concur. The main problem with the article is the input of anti-Monsanto activists crusading roughshod over wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we know if this article is within the scope of the ongoing Arbcom case? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetically Modified Organisms? Mentioned in evidence, and many of those named in the case are active in the article. --Pete (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is within the scope of the Arb case, but it is not about GMO's. I don't know what the main problem is with the article ,but it is a huge mess and needs some attention. Minor4th 03:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Cite act}}

Can template:Cite act be expanded to add an archival URL, and legislative session, and legislature ? Currently it doesn't seem to have any way to define which legislature the act was passed in, or which session -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Not in Front of the Children - at Peer Review

I've requested Peer Review for Not in Front of the Children.

Feedback would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Not in Front of the Children/archive1.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Status of Scientology

Hi, I'd like some help on this topic and Talk:Scientology#Scientology_as_a_tax-exempt_organization (poor sourcing, reliable sources not taken into account, inconsistencies between articles on the same topic). Apokrif (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review

I have recently made some edits to Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., and since I am not American, and not a lawyer, I would appreciate it if somebody who is both would review my recent edits. Debresser (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Blank pad rule

Do we have an article on this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Now we do. Thanks everyone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Lebanon

Can someone clarify what the situation is regarding Women's suffrage in Lebanon? There is a discussion here: Talk:Women's_suffrage#Lebanon. 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C2F4 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Requesting edits on Marsy's Law

Hello, I have posted an edit request on the Talk page for Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 article. Specifically, I'm asking for two proposed edits that would include a short overview of a similar Marsy's Law in Illinois. I have a financial conflict of interest (I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) so I am aware I should not edit the article. Can someone here take a look at my request and add this new detail to the article? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)