Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law This page is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

Archives

Archive 1 - July - September 2005 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 - January - April 2007 Archive 5 - May-July 2007 Archive 6 - August 2007-April 2008 Archive 7 - May 2008-October 2008 Archive 8 - October 2008-December 2008 Archive 9 - January 2009-July 2009 Archive 10 - July 2009-April 2010 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

It's been pointed out to me this reproduction of the Hadley v Baxendale judgment appears to be abridged. Anybody know if there's a complete version, & how to address the issue of its use as a cite? (Issue also raised at talk of the judgement page.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked it against the two cites for the case via WL, it appears that the BAILII judgment is short the law reporter's summary & list of authorities from the top of the page, but thats not really a big loss in my view. Other than that its identical to (1854) 156 ER 145, which is itself a reprint of (1854) ExCh 341. As far as I can tell, the case was not reported anywhere else so the content on the BAILII page is pretty much the most authoritative it gets. Hope that helps. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. actually strike that, I've seen the IP's comments on your talk page and I think I may have misunderstood the issue and not been careful enough comparing the reports.. I'll get back to you asap. Bob House 884 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've had a better look now, the BAILII version is about 1k words shorter than the other two reports which are (seemingly) identical, its been cut down and reworded by someone, but its hard to tell whether thats from the time of the judgment or a modern thing. Westlaw and the textbooks cite (1854) 156 ER 145 & 9 ExCh 341.

Lexis cites (1854) 23 LJ Ex 179, 9 Exch 341, 18 Jur 358, 2 WR 302, 156 ER 145, [1843-60] All ER Rep 461, 2 CLR 517, 23 LTOS 69, but can only provide the text of the reprinted ALL ER.

Nobody cites the BAILII version ([1854] EWHC Exch J70), probably because it's one of their retrospectively imposed neutral cites.

It's possible that BAILII has copied one of the missing reports, which you might be able to access at a library. It might be that they've conciously trimmed it down.

In either case I think its not appropriate to link to the BAILII version in the lead, but you can put it in the external links as an alternative report. BAILII judgments are usually a last resort for when 'better' reports aren't available.

Two unrelated points: the citations in the case infobox are completely out and the passage quoted is from pages 354-356 rather than 354-355.

Hope that helps, sorry for cocking up first time Bob House 884 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bob, it helps a lot! I've made changes to the cites, per your info here. One question: is pp 354-356 equivalent to pp 145-147 if we dump the bailii.org cite in the lead and use 156 ER 145 instead? 71.246.238.214 (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job so far, if you use the ER cite then the quotes are all from page 152, if you use the ExCh one then the quotes are from 354-6. It's not really too important which you use since theyre both the same text, but you should identify the law report you've taken the quote with a pinpoint something like this ^[1]

If your interested, [1843-60] All ER Rep 461 (that is the reprints of the law reports) identifies the judges as Barons Parke, Alderson, Platt and Martin. Regards Bob House 884 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again, Bob. I'll fix the ref and page number right now. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new article titled Jeffrey Lena, about the lawyer who represents the Vatican in the USA. To do:

• Expand the article.
• Link to it from appropriate other articles. For now, it's an "orphan".

Michael Hardy (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on the following discussion: Rewrite of the lead making the term difficult to define. I reverted James500's edits because the lead was already extensively worked out on the talk page, and James500's rewrite made the definition confusing and sloppy; not to mention...it defines rape first and foremost as the name of a statutory crime in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and other countries...and he added text that clearly needed sources. Further, his tagging of various statements (with the tags "dubious"/"where?"/"who?"/etc.) are uncalled for. All it takes is tagging a section with one large tag. And when a statement says "In America," it is pretty clear where..."where" is. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created an article on Good law, which is a pretty important concept. I could use some help expanding it. Raul654 (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing about the said question and would like to request for your opinions, please join us here. Thank you.

--Aristitleism (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to initially define rape has now been moved to the Laws regarding rape article. I have an issue with the lead not defining rape as "sexual intercourse/sexual activity without consent" first and then going into the state/jurisdiction stuff, as well as with how the lead is formatted in general (my view that it is messy and needs cleanup). Needless to say, opinions are needed.

The full discussion about it is higher than the above linked discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know...yet another discussion about rape at this alk page. But opinions are needed. A proper move/merge discussion would be best, though, to bring in the wider Wikipedia community on this. The discussion is about whether or not the articles should be merged/whether or not the Rape article should exist. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally posted this comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography but nobody has weighed in yet so I thought I'd try here.

I've noticed that the word "murder" is used in categories (and in some articles) in a loose manner. Anyone who is killed by another person is categorized as a murder victim in some way. But the term "murder" has a specific legal meaning (at least in Canada, the U.S., the UK): it's the intentional killing of another person with malice aforethought (of different degrees). This definition presupposes that a perpetrator has been apprehended, charged, tried, and found guilty of murder (rather than, say, manslaughter).

In some instances the killer is never found (e.g. see Chuckie Mauk), or the killer cannot be brought to trial (e.g. see Phil Hartman). So these killings cannot properly be called "murder"; they should be called "homicide". I know Wikipedia is not a legal encyclopedia per se, but I do feel that this is a distinction that should be maintained. Characterizing a homicide as a "murder" seems also to carry a subjective weight that is discouraged by WP:NPOV.

I also realize that the "murder" categorization is used all over the place in thousands of articles. Perhaps one of the tasks within the Crime Project one of the projects could be to scan through the articles categorized under "murder" and determine which ones don't belong. There could be new categories created for "homicide", and the "murder" categories would be subcategories. I've created Category:American homicide victims as a start. I'd be willing to work on it.

Any thoughts? ... discospinster _talk 03:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in creating an article regarding the concept of "single entity" in sports. Some of my early drafts delve into points like how single-entity leagues function differently than those that are not, how it relates to the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, and court cases that have helped shape what single entity is (Fraser v. MLS, American Needle v. NFL), etc. Some feedback on maybe what more to include is always appreciated. Is anyone else interested in going into this further? --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on whether or not the Sexual intercourse article should lean mostly toward human sexual intercourse. One view is that since "sexual intercourse" mostly refers to humans and we have other articles to cover sexual activity of non-human animals (such as Animal sexual behavior), then it is fine that the article mostly leans towards humans, similar to the Anal sex and Oral sex articles. The other view is that humans should not be given so much weight, since the term "sexual intercourse" also refers to non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm this is WikiProject Law... Bob House 884 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Requested Move discussion is in progress for moving Defense of marriage amendment to State amendments banning same-sex unions. Please consider commenting. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges#Requested_move on moving Rod Blagojevich corruption charges → United States v. Blagojevich.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on this article, which was tagged to WikiProject Law Enforcement but not Law. For starters I'm not entirely sure that traffic court is an actual thing - obviously all jurisdictions which have traffic have traffic law and some court has to deal with that, but I'm not familiar with any which has a dedicated court for it. In my limited experience 'Traffic court' is more just a colloquial term for whatever court happens to be dealing with traffic violations (in the UK, Magistrates Courts tend to group traffic cases together and hear them seperately from other cases but they do not sit as a different court as they would for Youth Court etc.)

I did a quick google search and found one Traffic Court in Philidelphia [1] an informal user's guide to surviving traffic related cases in Valley County, ID [2] and a vague, non-capitalised mention of a traffic court in Dubai [3]. I'm not sure any of these cuts it for me.

My other problems with this article are that virtually none of it is sourced (there are two sources for a single sentence and both come from California, so don't even really support that sentence, and an external link to a directory which calls itself a directory of traffic courts, but in practice just directs you to the court which deals with traffic cases in your area. Finally the whole article needs a bit of a world view overhaul.

A second (perhaps US based) opinion on whether this is worth an article would be great, as would someone sourcing and fixing up the article. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that a large number of law related articles use unnumbered references and numbered notes for citations. Can someone clarify that the style for law articles is to follow that for all other Wiki pages, ie numbered references? CSDarrow (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have two competing naming conventions for articles in Category:Copyright law by country. Some are "<nationality> copyright law" and the others are "Copyright [law] (in|of) <nation>". And then we have the oddball, "<nation> copyright law" for "United States copyright law". I dislike "American copyright law", so I am preferring moving them all to "Copyright law of <nation>" or "Copyright in <nation". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a content dispute currently going on at Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution over whether material in Emerich de Vattel's work The Law of Nations may, or may not, be cited as an influence (or a potential influence) on what the framers of the Constitution meant by the phrase "natural born citizen". The question has given rise to various different opinions, as well as some edit-warring, and I'm unsure of whether a credible consensus for any position can be reached at present with only those editors currently involved. Participation from others (no matter what side they might end up taking) would be helpful. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]