Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Law and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:LAWWT:LAW

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Law portal 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.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Mills v R

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@BD2412 How about [1]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Requesting RFC participation

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revised Statutes

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

Legal lexicography

I'm not sure if this unsourced article is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems quite notable. [2] voorts (talk/contributions) 20:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stubify it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Penal Code of Japan

Please add reliable sources to this fairly important article. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposed deletion of White Corolla case

The article White Corolla case has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced, Not Notable, and for an Update – all for almost 8 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. We are Not the Daily News. I feel badly for the crime victims, but this is not something we do.

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) 17:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Correspondence with the Pretender Act 1697

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hello, Please note that 99-year lease, 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, 27 October 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Peon#Requested move 21 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peon#Requested move 21 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 21:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Employment-to-population ratio#Requested move 25 October 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Employment-to-population ratio#Requested move 25 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 15:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Montana Vigilantes

Montana Vigilantes 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) 17:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Constitution of Virginia

Constitution of Virginia 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) 22:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selskap med begrenset ansvar

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R v Hundal

This article on Canadian criminal law needs copy editing and reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Please note that Kidnapping, 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, 17 November 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

List of jurists

Does anyone want to take a crack at sourcing this and/or defining its parameters? Bearian (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for R v Thomas

R v Thomas 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) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting feedback on Draft:Legora

Hi all. I'm preparing to resubmit Draft:Legora about the Swedish legal AI startup. I've done my best to address previous reviewer concerns, but would appreciate any feedback on notability, source quality, structure or anything else! Thanks very much for any guidance or suggestions. Neilyoung77 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources appear to be primary news reports, which is not enough to establish notability of a company. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2025 Interim Constitution of Syria#Requested move 3 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Interim Constitution of Syria#Requested move 3 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary physical custody

Would somebody with more patience than me please fix this, and add at least one reliable source. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Schoenherr (law firm)

The article Schoenherr (law firm) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Absolutely not notable.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v IRC

Not only is the his unsourced, but it's something of a cut and paste job. Please fix it. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v A-G

I'm not sure if this is notable. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is a wiki-policy in regard to using foreign legal terms in English-language articles?

I wrote a section in this article Constitution of Austria:

"Legislation may be vetoed only on procedural (but not substantive) grounds." 

which basically says, that the President of Austria can veto a law, only if the Parliament violated the process of passing the law. This is different from the US practice, where the president can veto an Act of Congress, just because he disagrees with the substance of the Act. User Errantios reverted my edit to the original form, which was a LITERAL translation of German terms, that are mysterious to someone with training in the Common Law (i.e. people in most English-speaking countries). Since this is a English-language Wikipedia, I feel that we should use well-established English terms even when writing about other countries. Is there a wiki-policy about it? And how do I proceed with our dispute? ApoieRacional (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your last question, you should start by discussing the issue on the article's talk page. And please note that as the article stands now, there are two sentences in direct contradiction to one another: "The president does not have the power to veto bills; a signature is a technical formality notarizing that the bill has been introduced and resolved upon in accordance to the procedure stipulated by the constitution. Legislation may be vetoed only on procedural (but not substantive) grounds." (Emphasis added.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I fixed the inconsistency, that you pointed out. And I have resolved the argument with another editor. It seems, that everyone is happy about this article Constitution of Austria#Federal legislature. I do have some knowledge of Comparative law, but I am an American, and I feel that Austrian lawyers should review this article. ApoieRacional (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Productions v. Williams Electronics

Not sure where to ask this question, but I'm unfamiliar with sources for court cases. If someone could help point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

While cleaning up the video game article Robotron: 2084, I found in my research that Walt Disney sued the game developer for trademark infringement ahead of the summer release of the 1982 Disney film Tron; Robotron: 2084 was released in March 1982. I haven't found anything about the outcome though, and I'd like to include information about the resolution if possible. All I have is that Disney filed in the United States District Court in Chicago in May 1982. Appreciate any help or guidance. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I'd look in newspaper archives on WP:TWL to see if anything was reported. It's doubtful that any secondary legal sources would've covered this unless the case set a significant precedent, which is also doubtful given that this was a run-of-the-mill trademark suit. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding much, but does this work, Guyinblack25? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they settled. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was hoping to find. Thanks for the suggestions and help! (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]