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

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic 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 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

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 Archive 28

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

If this had just 2 or 3 more citations, it would easily be a B-Class Article, and possibly a GA. Can somebody help? Bearian (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! Mary Wiki25 has done an exemplary job of adding several sources. Bearian (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone here interested in biographies of lawyers, I have an edit request to update the article on James Sexton (attorney). It's a straightforward request to update the biography based on a Times of London profile piece. Full disclosure: I made this request on behalf of James Sexton via my work at Beutler Ink. Danilo Two (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by MediaKyle. Bearian (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Due to taking off the Yearbook website, this is now completely unsourced. I had to demote it back to a stub. Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: still needs work. Bearian (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Foley & Lardner article. DrThneed (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Athanasi1745. Bearian (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article Pornography in Austria has been proposed for merging into Pornography Act (Austria). Your feedback is requested at this merge discussion. Mathglot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Bearian (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject Law editors,

I am posting here to request assistance from an independent editor willing to review and potentially submit a biographical article on Jennifer R. Rebholz, a Phoenix, Arizona attorney and former President of the State Bar of Arizona (2021–2022).

I have a conflict of interest in this matter and am following Wikipedia's COI guidance by requesting that a neutral editor evaluate the draft rather than submitting it myself.

Summary of subject: Jennifer R. Rebholz served as President of the State Bar of Arizona from 2021 to 2022, overseeing a 25,000-member organization that licenses and regulates attorneys under the supervision of the Arizona Supreme Court. Her election was historically significant as the first time the Bar's two top leadership positions - President and President-Elect - were simultaneously held by women. She currently serves as Senior Counsel at Zwillinger Wulkan PLC, is a board-certified specialist in personal injury and wrongful death, and chairs the State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization Task Force (2024–2025).

Sources identified:

• "New Ariz. Bar Leader On Social Justice And Attorney Diversity" by Sarah

Martinson, Law360 Pulse, June 24, 2021 - fully independent, named journalist, Rebholz is sole subject (paywalled)

• "Ever Forward: New Bar President Jennifer Rebholz" by Tim Eigo, Arizona

Attorney Magazine, July/August 2021 - full independent profile, sole subject, named journalist

• "President's Message: Future-Proofing Specialization" by Ted A. Schmidt,

Arizona Attorney Magazine, May 2025 - supporting reference

Draft location: The fully prepared draft is available at: User:WilloDesert/Jennifer_Rebholz

What I am asking: I am not asking anyone to advocate for this article. I am simply asking whether an independent editor would be willing to:

1. Review the draft for neutrality, sourcing, and compliance with BLP policy
2. Offer feedback on whether the notability threshold is met
3. If satisfied, submit through AfC or move to mainspace directly

I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

WilloDesert (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of your conflict of interest? Do you work for Ms. Rebholz or do you have a personal or business relationship with her? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:59, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much. Personal relationship. WilloDesert (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use any form of AI to generate your draft? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks you for your question. claude (anthropic) was used to help follow the Wicki standards to be neutral and more encyclopedia-like. hopefully this helps comply with wicki intent and creates less work for potential reviewers. thank you. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. We don't accept AI generated content. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So should I instead submit a previous version? It is less neutral but happy to work through and learn about the process. Thank you. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please log back into your account. Do you have three independent sources that discuss Ms. Rebholz in depth? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. yes. 3 main sources identified in draft. thank you. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please link them here. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sources identified:

https://www.azattorneymag-digital.com/azattorneymag/20210708/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1712096#articleId1712096

"Ever Forward: New Bar President Jennifer Rebholz" by Tim Eigo, Arizona

Attorney Magazine, July/August 2021 — full independent profile, sole subject, named journalist

"New Ariz. Bar Leader On Social Justice And Attorney Diversity" by Sarah

Martinson, Law360 Pulse, June 24, 2021 — fully independent, named journalist, Rebholz is sole subject (paywalled)

https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/1395654/new-ariz-bar-leader-on-social-justice-and-attorney-diversity

Law360 Plus may be pay-walled

Account

New Ariz. Bar Leader On Social Justice And Attorney Diversity

By Sarah Martinson | 2021-06-24 10:51:59 -0400

The new president of the State Bar of Arizona, Jennifer Rebholz, has ambitious plans to continue her predecessor's work of promoting social justice, adding more diversity to the bar and addressing racial bias in the legal system.

Jennifer Rebholz

Rebholz, a personal injury litigator who recently joined Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP in Phoenix as of counsel, replaced Denis Fitzgibbons as president of the State Bar last week.

Rebholz has been involved in the Arizona Bar since almost the very beginning of her legal career in 2007 when she was a trial attorney at Farley Choate & Bergin. She became involved in the Bar's young lawyers division and eventually became president of the division. After that, she joined the Bar's board of governors and was eventually elected future president of the bar.

"Even if not everything is completed by the end of my term, I'm confident that [the president-elect] ... will continue with these objectives and these goals and really make sure they all get across," Rebholz said.

Here, Rebholz spoke to Law360 Pulse about her goals for the state bar and how she plans to achieve them. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What are your priorities as bar president?

We've got a lot of things going on, and one of my priorities is continuing with the recommendations from a social justice task force created last year. Some of those recommendations we're still in the process of rolling out. Some of the things include getting more CLE that's focused on diversity and inclusion. In fact, we have a rule change before the state Supreme Court right now to require one of our hours every year to be focused towards diversity and inclusion. And likely that would also be an ethics component, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

One of the other recommendations is for gathering more information with regards to diversity and potential bias. [The task force] realized that we really don't keep very good records when it comes to things like discipline [in terms of gender, race or ethnicity] in Arizona. Our discipline system is part of the State Bar and the board of governors. We don't really keep track of gender, race and ethnicity when people go through that system. So when people say, "Are you disciplining different races differently or different genders differently?" we just don't even have that information. So we're trying to gather all that information so we can really take a look and, and hopefully be able to say, "No, we don't."

One of the bigger things that I'm really excited about is working with the courts now that we're out of COVID and working with the bar foundation, which is our charitable arm of the State Bar, to figure out how the technology that we were all forced to use during the pandemic can be continued to really provide access to justice.

You want to go back into court, but I think what the pandemic has shown us is, particularly for initial appearances or family law cases, you don't necessarily have to have somebody who has to take an entire day off work to drive downtown for a half-hour hearing if they could do it via Zoom. Now you're actually having people participate meaningfully in these hearings and you're having people show up without putting their jobs in jeopardy or having them get on three or four different buses to figure out how to get downtown.

I'm really looking forward to working with the courts on what kinds of technology we need to keep in place so that people have better access to the courts versus just going back to how things were before because people are tired of Zoom. It's kind of going to be a hit and miss when figuring out which things work and which things don't, but I'm really excited to work with them on that.

Do you have other goals for the bar to enhance social justice and access to justice?

The recommendations are a great start. I really want to make sure that that's not where we end. There are a couple of different task forces, some with the courts, some with us, that are taking a meaningful look at jury selection — how we handle jury selection, how we are deciding who's going to come down for jurors, how we are sending them questionnaires. We have a group with the Supreme Court that's looking at that to try to make sure we get more diversity and more fairness in our jury system. Same with the CLEs that we present.

We're not looking at necessarily making any quota like you have to have one woman or one minority on any CLE. We are looking at what kinds of things we do as a Bar and as a community to increase the pool of people that we're asking to come in and be speakers. Are we partnering with sister bars like the Black Bar Association? What are we doing to get a greater pool of people that we're pulling from and ask me to do these things?

A lot of people will say that the Bar Association has a higher concentration of people from big law firms. On some level, I think it's easier for big law firms to absorb the volunteer hours and time that it takes for people to be meaningfully involved in these committees. But we are looking at what kinds of things we can do to try to make that more diverse, get more people who are either solo practitioners or at small firms, and what kind of initiative we can do to increase our diversity that way.

Can you tell me more about the continuing legal education classes that you want the bar to offer?

Part of that is diversity, inclusion and bias, and actually having those CLEs that discuss unconscious bias and how that plays out in your law firm. One of the things that we're working on is making it so that there's not one diversity CLE, but that you have lots of different options. I think it's important to have a lot of those that talk about unconscious bias and how that affects other people and what kinds of things you can actually do to try to change your behavior.

Earlier you mentioned wanting to make attorney discipline gender and race neutral. Have there been any incidents in Arizona of attorney discipline not being gender and race neutral?

That was a recommendation from the [social justice] task force to start gathering this information. I have no reason to believe that they are, but we don't have the information one way or another.

How would the bar collect data on its diversity and discrepancies in attorney discipline?

That's part of what we're working on. I think there were some recommendations for surveys, but that only helps if people actually answer the survey. We're trying to figure out a way to get the information in a meaningful way and then interpret it in a meaningful way. That may end up being partnering with some of the local universities or statisticians to help interpret it.

--Editing by Brian Baresch.

Clarification: This story has been updated to clarify a task force findings about Arizona bar disciplinary records.

"President's Message: Future-Proofing Specialization" by Ted A. Schmidt,

Arizona Attorney Magazine, May 2025 — supporting reference

https://www.azattorneymag-digital.com/azattorneymag/library/item/202505/4269020/ ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voorts, Could you confirm whether the three sources I listed are considered sufficient for notability? Thank you. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. We're all volunteers here. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. of course. ~2026-14986-40 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Voorts, we last chatted in the 1st half of March. Anyway, I thank you in advance for any advice you are able to offer connected to an independent review. Thx. WilloDesert (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the James Sexton (attorney) article. DrThneed (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Bearian (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Free Law Project article. DrThneed (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reliable sources. I've had no luck, but I haven't done any IP work since 1998. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello legal eagles. I have been working on a page on a California appellate court ruling Safechuck v. MJJ Productions and would welcome input from WikiProject Law editors, particularly on sourcing and legal wording. **PLEASE NOTE** the case is about [[:Category: Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations]] which is an EXTREMELY contentious topic. I have been "brought up on charges" with the Wikipedia admins twice and that never happens to me! Anyway if you dont want the smoke as the kids say, dont get involved! Bhdshoes2 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blocking of Twitter in Nigeria#Requested move 15 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not moved. Bearian (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this case is notable. Please review, and if I'm wrong, please add reliable sources, or if I'm correct, then consider proposing deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This decision is current law, however I feel that the full extent of its relevance can be summarised by the following footnote in Halsbury's Laws:

If an employer seeks to rely on more than one reason, he must either establish them all or show that the dismissal was fair solely on those that he can establish: Smith v Glasgow City District Council [1987] ICR 796, [1987] IRLR 326, HL.

(Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 41, para 776)

Even as an authority it is only invoked every few years (I can find EAT decisions from 1993, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2005 (also cited in argument in appeal to EWCA), 2016, 2018 and 2026 which mention it), so it seems as if it is not particularly notable. notadev (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been Unsourced for almost 21 years. It survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act in 2005. This bill never passed. A Google search found only one passing mention in a law review article in 20 years. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage. The creator was blocked for making death threats. Really. I'm traveling next week and might not have time to shepherd this through AfD again. Can somebody please do the dirty job? Bearian (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Rand Freeman (talk to me) 01:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RandFreeman. "Some men are born to do our unpleasant tasks for us." - To Kill a Mockingbird. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - deleted. Bearian (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article SEC v. Goldman Sachs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject of this article is already discussed in detail on the Goldman Sachs controversies article making this article redundant. This article should be deleted.

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) Bearian (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodded. Bearian (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal 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) 02:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value".

The overview of Vital-4 law articles has quite a few Start-class and C-class article including civil and political rights, presumption of innocence and rule of law. Having accurate and easy-to-understand articles on these topics would be a big boon. Hope to see you at the contest! Signups are open now —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Government attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies#Requested move 17 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Bearian (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a stub for the Social Media Victims Law Center. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message on your talk page via NPP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:12 Angry Men (1957 film)#Requested move 12 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:41, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. A query related to a case in Pakistan is currently open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan#Ali Zafar, similar to the case of Depp v. Heard. Anyone is welcome to participate and contribute. Thank you! M. Billoo 16:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that Constitution of Hungary be moved to Fundamental Law of Hungary, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Powers of the president of the United States#Requested move 8 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lawbookwriter is currently getting beaten up over at ANI over articles they have been creating on various English Law precedents.

They're being accused of systematically failing to establish Notability, and - the most serious charge - of unduly close paraphrasing of law reports (likely themselves closely modelled on the judgment text, which is available OGL, a wiki-compatible license).

Some experienced eyes in this area -- and perhaps offers of mentorship -- could be useful. Jheald (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS, be careful... GiantSnowman 20:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's sufficiently neutral for the purposes, I'm not concerned. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has now also moved to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, specifically Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Copying text from BAILII

In question:

• What usage here of texts from UK judgments, including those at BAILII, is copyright compliant?
• What text can we assume is licensed, under licence(s) we can use?
• What attributions are required, and how are they best given?
• To what extent is direct quotation and/or extended close paraphrasing appropriate?
• If licensing cannot be found, should such use be minimised or avoided, per WP:FAIRUSE ?

BAILII is currently cited as a source on over 3,000 pages, so this potentially touches a lot of articles (even if not all will include paraphrases or direct quotes).

For one admin's current position until this is resolved, see User talk:Hammersoft#Please, please don't delete English tort law. Any follow-up discussion please to the thread at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. -- Jheald (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that Anti-miscegenation laws be moved to Laws against interracial relationships, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This RM impacts multiple pages.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not moved. Bearian (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (Supreme Court decisions), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (Supreme Court decisions) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Notability (Supreme Court decisions) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:59, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been userfied. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Roman Polanski sexual abuse case#Requested move 19 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not moved. Bearian (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1991 Austin yogurt shop murders#Requested move 30 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding a naming convention for the titles of articles about an anti-LGBTQ law in a particular country at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies would affect the titles of articles about anti-LGBTQ laws in various countries. The question is whether the titles of articles about anti-LGBTQ laws in various countries should be "Anti-LGBTQ law in [Country]" or "[Nationality] anti-LGBTQ law" in accordance with WP:CONSISTENT. Justthefacts (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We're having a disagreement at Talk:Atlantic_Institution#List_of_Residents about one editor's choice to remove the list of incarcerated inmates who have made headlines at the prison -and would appreciate some additional insights and voices. New Yathrib - Fundy Historian (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is notable, or even had a copyright violation. Can someone please take a look at this? Bearian (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commissioner v. Boylston Market Ass'n. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This Canadian legal stub is barely sourced. Could somebody with knowledge of Canadian law please expand this and add reliable sources? There's no rush after 18 years. In fact, if you see Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas/Rules, you can work on it this week, post your changes in May, and get credit. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can some person with expertise in Hong Kong law or academia help address the issues tagged? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal title statutes in the Thirteen Colonies 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) 03:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: demoted to B-Class Article. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Black Act 1723 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) 03:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done - kept as a GA. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Security Act (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) 03:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article about a patent law firm was nominated for deletion in 2005 and survived. It has barely been touched in the 21 years since. Can someone fix the issues tagged, or nominate it again? Bearian (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues have been resolved. Still needs some reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the consensus on section headings? I've seen the background sections be titled "Background" or "Factual background" or "Facts" and I've seen the court's decision as "Decision," "Judgment," "Opinion," "Supreme Court" etc. In some I see the dissent in a separate section and in some it is just under a sub-heading. Some have a separate section for procedural posture/"Lower court"/"procedural history" and some don't. Is there a consensus on what they should be, especially for Supreme Court cases? Bairdsparrow (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't created a WikiProject style guide. As for the headings you've identified, I'll give you the lawyer's answer: it depends. RE "Decision" vs. "Judgment" vs. "Opinion", I think it depends on the common usage of the jurisdiction (e.g., a SCOTUS writing is generally referred to as an "opinion") and how much due weight should be afforded to an aspect of a case (for example, if the legal literature discusses the parties' arguments, a section on that might be appropriate). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the facts-issue-holding-reasoning format. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please rescue this stub? Bearian (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done by Visviva. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statute of Uses 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) 02:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:EU aviation fuel taxation#Requested move 6 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been started at Talk:Art and culture law#Possible AI generated text regarding concerns that large 2023 additions of content to that article have signs of having been generated by an LLM. -- Visviva (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-capacity magazine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this ever passed, or was ever notable. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, please add reliable sources. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see some plausible contemporary sources on an initial glance, but I don't think this is the way to go. Versions of this bill were introduced multiple times from at least 2008 to 2013. It doesn't look like any of these free-standing bills passed; unclear if some of the objectives may have been accomplished in other ways. Would suggest that a single article at Open Fuel Standard (or Open Fuel Standard Act) would make more sense. Any salvageable content from Open Fuel Standard Coalition could go there too. Not in position to do this just now, though. -- Visviva (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody with knowledge of Oregon courts please add reliable sources? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Casey Cutler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly sourced article about an otherwise private individual involved with one incident, and fails the relevant notability guideline about crimes. Tagged for notability concerns for almost 14 years. Lacks significant coverage.

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) 18:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Philippine Senate lockdown#Requested move 13 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all! I mostly edit in academic philosophy, but have just created an article that falls under the scope of this project. I'd appreciate it if folks would take a look in case it needs cleaning up (or worse!). I hope to be contributing more law-related stuff and so welcome feedback, will read edit descriptions, et cetera. Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Q&As published by law schools aren't really reliable sources, and news articles aren't great for law either since journalists really aren't great at writing about the law. I'd prefer to see law review/journal articles discussing the concept. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Amar is not the only person to have written about this and I think it's grown beyond his original concept. I think this should be a WP:BCA voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Voorts, thanks for your comments! The Q&A is with Amar and published in a Law Review, so I assume it's been worked over by law students in the same way as any any other manuscript.

I share your general view on mainstream reporting on legal matters, but Adam Liptak is also an attorney. The reason I created the article is that this idea from a 40-year-old Law Review is suddenly being discussed as a possible political remedy in the mainstream media. So I think it's important to mention/demonstrate this in the article.

As the emphasis on Amar, that is probably just a reflection of my own limited knowledge. I would be happy to have someone else come in with some more sources to develop the article in the direction of a BCA.

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've identified these three "Top" rated articles to improve:

1. Statute
2. Tax law
3. Venue (law).

They are all assessed as start-class. Could you please discuss as to which one we should improve first? Bearian (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reliable sources. Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncmvocalist: The year-long backlog of requested assessments is  Done. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2026 Virginia redistricting amendment#Requested move 10 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 09:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please review this article and its citations? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from an expert on this subject. Could someone please add more sources and rate its importance? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reliable sources to this article. It affects ordinary people, perhaps even your clients. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable and unsourced. Should we delete this, or try to rescue it? Bearian (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have prodded it. Seems like a crock of WP:OR. Rand Freeman _{talk ⬩ in solidarity} 06:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the pun, but does anyone else want to take a shot at this? Bearian (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What a disaster. Does anyone want to work on this? Bearian (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2013 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Bill that was filibustered to death.

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) 16:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add reliable sources. I'm not familiar enough with Australian sources to know. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A merger was proposed over a decade ago and died. Can someone please do something with this? Bearian (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editors! My name's Sara and I work for the ACLU. If anybody is interested, I have an open COI edit request on the Deborah Archer article. If you have any questions, I'll see you over on the Talk page. Thanks ACLUSara (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]