Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal

Use Indigo Book instead of Bluebook

This page recommends, in the case of U.S. citations, use of the non-free Bluebook citation style guide for articles relating to U.S. legal cases. However, the Indigo Book (formerly Baby Blue) is a free content, public domain fork of text from a version that had lapsed into the public domain due to non-renewal, and is nearly identical to the official version.

In my opinion, as it is an open content project, the Manual of Style should endorse the use of the Indigo Book (and maybe it should be on Wikisource too?) as opposed to a non-free version. Would this be a good idea? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: I skimmed the PDF version that is linked at Indigo Book, and as far as I can tell, it appears to be the functional equivalent of the Bluebook in many respects (though it looks like the system doesn't use small caps). In principle, I like the idea of utilizing an open-source citation convention, but I also think that articles about U.S. cases should conform to the same citation convention that is used by 99 percent of law reviews in the United States. Also, there are plenty of publicly-accessible Bluebook guides floating around the internet (see, e.g., this and this). For those reasons, I think we should continue to recommend that editors use the Bluebook, but I'd also be okay with adding Indigo Book to the list of recommended citation conventions for U.S. cases as an additional resource. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Subsections for titles in different countries

I made subsections for titles in different countries[1], so details can be given for those countries. MBUSHIstory (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ambigous titles

I described what I saw being done in stable and good articles when there are ambiguous titles and added it here[2]. MBUSHIstory (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

3 dots (ellipsis) in legal citations

A discussion of this began on my talk page, and I hereby move it to this page:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ChrisTS: In legal citations using Bluebook style, I think ellipsis is indicated not by three dots close up (...), but rather by three dots with spaces between them. Please correct me on this if I am incorrect. Perhaps the BB has been changed since the 1950s and 1960s on this. But if the BB rule is still the same . . . then you need to insert non breaking spaces (. . .) to keep the ... all together. Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP: The MoS at MOS:ELLIPSIS says that three unspaced periods are recommended. And MOS:QUOTE, under the heading "Typographic conformity", says "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions ...", so Bluebook style seems not to apply. Chris the speller ^yack 21:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Chris, there was a WP discussion about legal format once and the conclusion was, first, In the United States use Bluebook format, normally. This is stated in the MOS:Legal (Manual of Style/Legal); second, it was concluded that for legal articles previously written in Bluebook style, that style should be preserved by subsequent editors of that article.

You are referring to a general MOS, not the MOS for legal articles. I do not remember how long ago this discussion occurred, but perhaps others -- such as Notecardforfree or bd2412 -- remember. The Indigo book is suggested by some in lieu of the Bluebook, but they are the same for most purposes, except that Indigo is free.

Cheers. Thank you. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP: Neither MOS:LEGAL nor its talk page (WT:Manual_of_Style/Legal) nor its archived discussions (WT:Manual_of_Style/Legal/Archive_1) mention ellipses, so I don't yet see why Wikipedia's style of ellipses should not apply. What article brought this to your attention? And how are we going to help prevent other editors who are not indoctrinated into Bluebook style from messing with ellipses? Perhaps this needs to be resolved on the MOS:LEGAL talk page. Chris the speller ^yack 05:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Chris. I think that would be a good idea. Can we transfer this to the Talk page that you mention and request a discussion there? I would just like to find out how properly to use ellipsis in quotations from legal opinions that are contained in WP articles about legal cases, so that I can be informed for the future. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

At this point I take no side except to say that if ellipses are generally three unspaced dots, but three spaced dots in legal citations, there will be confusion; not all those who edit law articles are lawyers, and not all are familiar with Bluebook style. OK, ideas and opinions, please. Chris the speller ^yack 17:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

To quote Notecardforfree in an earlier post (above) on this page: "I also think that articles about U.S. cases should conform to the same citation convention that is used by 99 percent of law reviews in the United States. Also, there are plenty of publicly-accessible Bluebook guides floating around the internet (see, e.g., this and this). For those reasons, I think we should continue to recommend that editors use the Bluebook, but I'd also be okay with adding Indigo Book to the list of recommended citation conventions for U.S. cases as an additional resource." PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

PraeceptorIP and Chris the speller, I think the quotation listed above serves as a nice summary of my thoughts on this matter. Wikipedia allows for a fairly wide degree of stylistic variations across its articles (see, e.g., WP:CITEVAR, WP:ENGVAR, our broad taxonomy of infoboxes). For articles about United States legal cases (and other topics pertaining to United States law), we should follow the conventions that are used in existing legal scholarship. There are dozens of free online guides that explain how to use the Bluebook (see, e.g., this guide from Cornell University, this guide from Suffolk University, and this guide from Georgetown University), so I don't think we need to worry about the Bluebook being inaccessible. In any event, MOS:ELLIPSIS does not prohibit the use of spaces within ellipses, and seems to me that the authors of that section contemplated that there may be some need for variation in Wikipedia articles.

I also have one other general comment, which is not specifically relevant to this discussion about ellipses: Wikipedia relies upon volunteer attorneys, legal scholars, and other legal professionals to maintain quality control in articles about legal topics (the same is true for medical articles, articles about theoretical physics, etc.). At this time, there are only a handful of editors on Wikipedia who have any real form of "expertise" on legal topics. Most legal professionals are extremely busy and have little extra time to learn new citation styles -- my own opinion is that legal professionals would be much more likely to contribute to Wikipedia if they can continue to utilize the citation style that they already know and use on a daily basis (i.e. when drafting legal documents). All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Linking of short ussc references

I have been reading Heffernan v. City of Paterson, a recently featured article presently on the main page, and have come here supposing it has been written within these guidelines. The article seems to me well written and presented (and interesting!) but I have a problem with the citations. I see there have been discussions about "Blue Book" and so on but I am not concerned with any technicalities. I merely want to be able to follow up references fairly easily (in practice only if they are online, which they are).

Many references are of the form "Heffernan, slip op. at 2–3" without any links and where it is far from clear (to me) where I should be looking further. I think this is due to "short=yes" being specified in {{ussc}}. It seems that as a reader I am expected to perceive that the first such citation should be in long form (and it is) and to search for it and use the link there. A problem for the general reader is the the long form looks very different from the short form so it is not obvious they are referring to the same thing. Alternatively I need to look in the infobox and realise that "Opinion announcement" is also what I am trying to find (it leads to a different web page, however). I think this MoS would be improved if it expected such short citations to be links, or at least there should be a subsection of "documents cited in short form", where I can find the references listed as a group in recognisable form. In a similar way "Heffernan II" and "Heffernan III" are defined as references and are later used but these are also difficult to find since they are embedded in the general reference list. Thincat (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The first time the citation is listed, it is in long form. When an opinion is brand new, you don't have a reporter to link to, you have a printed opinion issued by the Court. That is what is called a slip opinion. For Heffernan, referring to the first page of the opinion, it looks like:

• Heffernan v. City of Paterson, No. 14-1280, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (2016).

Subsequent cites to the same reference, but on the fourth page, it will look like:

• Heffernan, slip op. at 4.

The editors are not required to put any links in at all, even though most do. But almost no one will link every reference on a short citation. In any event WP:CITEVAR allows the article creator to determine which citation style they will use, and although MOS:LAW encourages the use of Bluebook, it is not required. I hope that helps, or if I didn't address what you were seeking, let us know. GregJackP Boomer! 18:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, I understand that no links at all are required. I am only suggesting that links (or more direct indication of the location of resources) would be useful to readers and so may be worth recommending. {{sfn}}, used for general short-form references, provides links so perhaps {{ussc}} could do something similar. Thincat (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

URLs in legal citations

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#"Bare" / "Raw" URLs in common style guides that arose out of the use of URLs in legal citations and may be of interest to people watching this page. AHeneen (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

OR Issues

Hi all,

I've recently started working on a some articles in this project field and have noticed a few issues. The one I'd like to discuss at the moment is the problem of WP:Original Research. OR is a problem that crops up in many areas of WP articles – my "home" area of WP:CHINA certainly included. However, it seems to be pretty pervasive here at WP:LAW. In quite a few of the articles on cases, including even some of the well-known cases, the majority of the article is cited from and attributed to the case itself. This is poor practice, and does not comply with the guidelines at WP:OR. Specifically, it violates the policies regarding the use of primary sources, which we are instructed to avoid here on WP (the specific section is at WP:PSTS). A relevant excerpt from the primary source section:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

I will endeavor to improve articles I work on by replacing case citations with citations to reputable secondary sources like prominent books, law review articles, and commentary in casebooks. I invite others to consider these thoughts and share your viewpoints. Additionally, I would like to suggest that, if the community agrees, a note on this subject be added to this MOS page, perhaps in the "Article Content" section. Thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law)

Case citations in lead

Hi all,

I would like to make a suggestion that is relatively small in nature but would apply to a fairly large number of articles. Most articles on cases currently have the case citation immediately following the case's first mention (in our case, the lead) as is de rigueur in legal writing. However, I don't think this is necessary on Wikipedia, and I've had a number of readers tell me that they find this practice confusing and distracting, especially in those cases where there are two or even three different reporters cited. Given the prevalence of excellent case infobox templates like {{Infobox court case}} and similar, citation inclusion in the lead is also completely redundant. I would recommend we specify that citations not be used in leads and instead be given in the infoboxes. As an obligatory aside, this is very similar to what has been done in China and other East Asia related articles with Chinese characters and romanizations in the lead. Any comments are welcome.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly support this cleanup proposal. Citation data belongs in reference citations, not lead-section prose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll make the change now.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted because I'm not a fan and I think this needs wider consensus. The first problem I have is that I believe this is unnecessary instruction creep. MOS is descriptive of current practice, not prescriptive, and current practice is very out of line with the proposed change. {{ussc}} which is mostly used to create US Supreme Court citations in ledes has over 3000 transclusions. WikiProject SCOTUS explicitly recommends using this style when creating articles. There's incredibly wide ranging consensus that including the citation in the lede prose is the style that should be used. Secondly, I don't believe this is an actual problem. I just don't believe readers are loading Obergefell v. Hodges, seeing a couple scary numbers and then promptly closing their browser never to look at the page again, or being so distracted by 8 characters that they are unable to read or comprehend the rest of the prose. What I think is happening is that they see it, wonder what it means, and continue reading without regard for it. In fact, a large number of these lede citations are hyperlinked, so perhaps they are confused, follow the link and learn something new. I would agree citing three different reporters or all of the various docket numbers in the lede is too much and confusing, but I don't think that's actually common. I think the proposal would create far more disruption and work than it's worth. Don't forget that we also have readers who are lawyers, law students, and legal scholars for whom this information is relevant. Infoboxes are great if you're familiar with the layout of Wikipedia, but not everyone is, and if all you're getting in a search engine result is the first few lines of prose this is actually incredibly useful. Third, the implied requirements go against other parts of the MOS. Personally, I have a problem with adding guidance that an infobox should or must be included. That's determined by consensus at each individual article per WP:INFOBOXUSE (and over which tons of bytes have been spilled discussing this very problem) and including it here would just open the door to wikilawyering about the subject since this would be seen as overriding local consensus (and would also be inconsistent with broader consensus at MOS:INFOBOX). I think this is a solution in search of a problem and instruction creep. But, most importantly, I think this change really requires broader consensus than three comments on a page with 48 watchers, especially given its conflict with other parts of the MOS, its use across across thousands of pages, and that a WikiProject explicitly recommends using the style for its articles. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

These are mostly fine points, although I'm not sure what the reference to people seeing the case citations and then "closing their browser" or being completely unable to read the article is supposed to be other than a silly straw man argument. I have said since raising this issue that I welcome other editors' input on it, but I got only one response (and it was very reasonably supportive). Feel free to alert other users and have them chime in. On the infobox note, those are good points to raise, but they raise other questions of their own. At least one quite large WikiProject (China) has a Project-wide policy or two regarding the use of infoboxes and do not bother with the "at each individual article" business, and if I am not mistaken there are a number of others that do as well. Thanks for the input, I'm curious to see more thoughts.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• My two cents: I concur with Wugapodes's insightful comments above. Including legal citations in the lead is extremely useful information when conducting legal research. The benefits of including this info far outweigh any drawbacks. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed with Wugapodes and Notecardforfree. WP is not written only for elementary school students. We need to write in a way that doesn't totally bewilder them, but we don't radically dumb down content, or just omit it, when its primarily of use to more-educated readers, including specialists. Otherwise we would, for example, remove scientific names (binomials) of species from leads, and do a lot of other lead denuding. PS: "But it's in the infobox" isn't good enough. Infoboxes contain info already in the article; they're summaries, and they're optional – people who hate them use user-level CSS to hide them, and WP:REUSErs of our content regularly omit them and just use the bare article text.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC); note added: 06:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• Just adding my note of agreement to the above editors who support keeping the citations (including those with template-driven external links) in the article leads. I point to WP:BuildTheWeb, and believe consensus is established by longstanding Wikipedia practice: in legal articles the LONGstanding practice is to include this information. I hope the editors who have removed the citations will go back and self-revert those edits. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Public-domain and parallel citations

I'd like to revive a thread that went moribund, for having been on the talk page of a draft, in which Mendaliv raised good points, almost exactly 5 years ago:

Suggestion to enhance case law citations for our audience

Since Wikipedia is ideally to be written with as general an audience as possible in mind, I think it might be a good idea to consider recommending the use of Rule 10.3.3 citations where possible. A lot of our readers aren't going to have access to the usual reporters, and may well just wind up googling for decisions. While not all jurisdictions have a case format amenable to such citations, I think it's worth thinking about. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is worth some additional consideration. More specifically, use a vendor- and medium-neutral citation system (per Bluebook 10.3.3, also found in ALWD 12.17) and addition of a parallel citation to a regional reporter when available (per Bluebook 10.3.1(b), and probably in ALWD somewhere), even if the court system to which the citation pertains doesn't require this. If even real-world lawyers are doing this, we probably should too, especially since we're writing for a global audience of non-experts, not writing for a specific court with citation rules.

Distilled to an MoS rule it would probably be:
Prefer public-domain citations over vendor- or medium-specific ones. If a regional reporter is available in addition to a national or state one, please provide that as well, after the latter. Remember that our goal in citing case documentation – like any other sources – on Wikipedia is helping readers verify the content we are presenting. The citation requirements of the courts in the jurisdiction of a case about which we are writing are of no consequence for how we source Wikipedia articles.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, at least in the US, PD citations (within the meaning of Bluebook Rule 10.3.3) are usually (if not always) state-specific citation regimes that the state mandates, at least within documents issued by the judiciary. So the last sentence is somewhat contrary to the idea of using PD citation formats.

I will say though, I have learned in the years since I made this suggestion that when lawyers from one jurisdiction cite case law from another jurisdiction for documents in their home jurisdiction, it's very common for those lawyers not to follow Rule 10.3.3 and just use the regional reporters. That is, if someone in New York writing a brief for a case in New York wanted to cite an Illinois case as persuasive authority (and Illinois uses a PD citation format), they'd more likely than not cite to the Northeastern Reporter than give the Illinois PD citation. It's my honest belief that Bluebook Rule 10.3.3 is more a normative recommendation than an actual common practice.

That said, I think editorially it's probably a good idea to at least provide guidance on how to handle these situations. Really, just about every state has some quirk to its in-state practice that out-of-state lawyers almost never follow, but that in-state lawyers consider important. In Texas, for instance, when citing appellate cases, it's considered essential for the citation to include the appellate district and (in some cases, more importantly) the subsequent appellate history. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, modulo the points that a) the idea is to use PD cites here when available and also (not instead) provide additional ones (even if not PD) that some may find easier to access in their particular circumstances (a bit like providing an archive-url even for links not dead yet), and b) the purpose of our cites is for our readers to find stuff and verify our content, not to mimic what lawyers in a particular jurisdiction are doing, I have no disagreement. I'll leave it to the legal eagles to work out exactly what should be advised. I just think we should advise something, that it help people find legal source material as much as is practical, and that it default to free ones when possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The use of public domain sources is always attractive, but in this case I think that R10.3.3 is just not common enough to warrant our use of it on here. The use of regional/state reporters (and legal citation format in general) causes enough problems for lay readers as it is.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Article Titles: Statutes

I have a suggestion that I would like to raise for discussion. Currently, the section on Article Titles only discusses cases. I'm surprised that the article doesn't give any guidance for how to title an article about a statute. I think we should also provide guidance on that issue. Full disclosure: I've been involved in debates on this point previously about articles about particular Canadian statutes, and my personal preference is always to use the short title for the act which is assigned to it by Parliament or the provincial Legislature. Others have argued that the bill number should be used, because when a bill is up for debate, it's often referred to in the media by the bill number, so that's the name the public associates with it. That in turn triggers some discussion about Recentism, since the bill number is transient and long-term is not a unique legal citation. I'm not trying to canvass support for my position on the name of any particular article. Rather, I came here for guidance and am surprised that there is no mention of this issue here at the Manual of Style. I also appreciate that there can be considerable variation on the naming of statutes in different jurisdictions, probably more so than in case citation, so it would have to be done consistently with the legal citation styles in each jurisdiction. It's very easy in Canada, because the custom is that each statute has a long title, and also frequently has a short title, intended for citations, so for Canada I would suggest using the short title assigned by the Parliament/Legislature. Thoughts? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: can you give some examples of articles in question?  White Whirlwind  咨  18:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Title formatting

This layout guide says to use Judge/Justice title, however I see in featured articles like Roe_v._Wade it's inconsistently included. Is there a more precise rule I'm missing, such as using the title once in each paragraph and not after? Shushugah (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shushugah: Interesting catch. I looked at MOS:JOBTITLES (the more relevant Manual of Style guideline) and don't see anything about multiple uses. In my opinion, I think Judge/Justice should be used before every mention, except for plural write "Judges/Justices (once, then) A, B, & C". (While I don't sense that this is something you were questioning, the term "Justice" is used for the member of the US Supreme Court and most (if not all) state/territorial supreme courts, while "Judge" is used for the judges of other courts.) AHeneen (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Canadian/British usage is to use "Justice Smith" on first usage, and then "Smith J." for all subsequent references, just like "Dr" is used for medical doctors. It's the standard abbreviation.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there is a British usage (i.e. I expect Scotland is different for instance) but in England a High Court judge is referred to in writing as Smith J (unless they have a higher rank, eg Smith MR or Smith CJ) throughout. "Smith J" is read as "Mr Justice Smith" or "Mrs Justice Smith" as the case may be. "Justice Smith" would never be said or written. Francis Davey (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, WP doesn't do "Prof[.] Jones" or "Dr[.] Cheng", so this is basically irrelevant. We should be clear about the role on first occurrence, e.g. "United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia" (or something shorter if the context is already clear), and just "Scalia" afterward. We write this way about everyone, including presidents and CEOs and senators/MPs, and whatever. PS: The fact that the British press is especially deferential, with things like "Ms. Justice Chenoweth", has nothing to do with how Wikipedia writes. That's a matter to cover as sourced content in an article on forms of address, perhaps.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

McCandlish is correct here. We do not use titles on Wikipedia. I personally will include a person's "descriptor" (for want of a better term) if it's been awhile in the article since they've been mentioned.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• In any cases it helps when reading a complicated article to make an exception and use the descriptor. There are often a great many names in legal articles. I assume everyone recognized the present US supreme court justices, who of us would immediately recognize all others?. There is also a conceptual diffeence from whta the judge says in court and what anyone else says,. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. And we also do it to disambiguate people with the same surname in the same article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:BBstyle

I stumbled across {{BBstyle}} today, which is a garish template we apparently use in 126 legal articles to tell readers which citations style we use. I've edited it to not be so garish, but does anyone object to deleting it? It doesn't seem to make sense to include editing warnings in the article text itself. TheDragonFire (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Australian Guide to Legal Citation

The Australian Guide to Legal Citation whose link is listed as 'dead' is now at https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2877782/AGLC3.pdf.

Regard Cowdy001 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cowdy001 - I have just updated the link and copied a few bits out of it for quick ref. (before seeing your note here - but I found what looks like a slightly revised version, 2019). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Mixed naming conventions

I recently came across a discussion from 2017 ([3]) that concerns the lack of standard naming convention for articles about "laws by country". I wanted to bring this to attention in case someone wants to formulate something more consistent. Right now, we have a huge variety of styles:

• X law (Abortion law, Prostitution law, Gun law in the United States)
• X laws (Child pornography laws in Portugal, Gun laws in the United States by state)
• Legal status of X (Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms, Legal status of cocaine, Legal status of same-sex marriage, Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors; also used for stuff like Legal status of Hawaii, Legal status of the Holy See, Legal status of the State of Palestine)
• Legality of X (Legality of incest, Legality of cannabis, Legality of bitcoin by country or territory, Legality of bestiality by country or territory)
• Laws regarding X (Laws regarding rape, Laws regarding child sexual abuse)

— Goszei (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• To add to the complexity: Law of Spain, Law of Norway, etc. BD2412 T 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also: English law (with a redirect from British Law), Law of the United Kingdom (with a redirect from British law), Australian legal system... I had noticed some of these before. Overdue for some rationalisation and clean-up! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mnmh... reasonable point, but I'm not sure it it's a huge problem. It might be. But all those titles look pretty clear to me, notwithstanding that they have different formats. This might be a case of people just phrasing things differently, as people do, and its probably OK. Herostratus (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, the first 3 or 4 on this list all have subtle differences in their meanings, and thus are not different naming conventions per se. In the first group, for example, "law" refers to all of the law on those subjects as a collective whole, and includes law created and/or developed by the courts as well as the legislative statutes; and also, in America anyway, constitutional law, which is sort of a subset of court-made law, but it's officially the courts' reckoning of what is written in the constitution (this is why courts may strike down legislative statutes in America but cannot do so in England - America's constitution is supreme over statutes, and can't be repealed by passing laws alone; the constitution gives the courts authority to strike down laws; in England any law can be repealed by Parliament, so there is nothing that exists that would grant the courts that power).
  • Now, for the second list, "(such and such) laws" refers to the collections of individual statutes on those subjects. The ones having to do with legal status focused on the status rather than the laws themselves (and are likely to involve topics whose status is somewhat of a grey area, e.g. cannabis in the US and in some other countries. Sorry if this post rambled on way too long.. cheers :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are subtle differences in their meanings, but do the articles represent those meanings? (Rhetorical question - I don't have time to check them all out!) Regardless, the redirects I mentioned above need fixing, as the only difference is the initial capital in "law". I'll change the British Law one to target Law of the United Kingdom, at least. I would suggest that the intention of the articles beginning "Legality of..." and "legal status of..." are identical, and I would probably lean towards the latter for all - but it would be good to hear the opinion of a trained lawyer, as there may be other implications I don't know of. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Article titles for criminal cases

There have been numerous discussions at Talk:State v. Chauvin on whether State v. Chauvin should be renamed to Trial of Derek Chauvin. Proponents of the move have cited similar articles as examples: Trial of George Zimmerman, Trial of Michael Jackson, Trial of Susan B. Anthony, O. J. Simpson murder case, and O. J. Simpson robbery case. Notably, these articles (which are US criminal cases) do not follow Bluebook format as this guideline currently requires. Non-US examples include Trial of Anders Behring Breivik, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Trial of Catalonia independence leaders, Trial of Saddam Hussein, and Trial of Oscar Pistorius.

The discussion at Talk:State v. Chauvin remains ongoing. In the meantime, I am hoping that editors can weigh in on this guideline more broadly. Specifically, I am asking the community to consider whether MOS:LAW#Article titles should be modified to state: Articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case, except for criminal trials, which should be titled "Trial of (defendant)" or a similar format.

Pinging the following participants at Talk:State v. Chauvin: @Bagumba, Phillip Samuel, InedibleHulk, 69.174.144.79, WikiVirusC, Buidhe, Kellis7, K.e.coffman, MykReeve, Lugnuts, Firefangledfeathers, Volteer1, Kauri0.o, Ched, and Iamreallygoodatcheckers:

I would greatly appreciate your feedback on the above. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In my eyes, if the trial is a spectacle, we go "Trial of...". If it's remembered best in hindsight for precedent alone, "X v. Y". So... InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a great point! I'm sure there are criminal cases that are notable on Wikipedia because of the precedent they set, especially if they were appealed to higher courts. In those cases, we should follow the convention for legal citations. How should we write the guideline to distinguish between non-precedent "spectacles" and cases that set legal precedent? Perhaps a reference to WP:NCE would be helpful, since criminal trials may qualify as "events". Edge3 (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

They exist, the search bar assured me, they deserve any credit for the idea. Any reasonable synonym for a spectacle is fine by me. Cheers. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with InedibleHulk's recommendation, with the further elucidation by IH and other editors. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The Chauvin RM is arguing WP:COMMONNAME. When one doesnt exists, it make sense to fallback to an "official name" or something more deterministic.—Bagumba (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If most RS about the trial is from legal professionals, then the common name *will* be in the X v. Y format. But if the case is more known from media reports, than it may not be, and the WP:COMMONNAME supersedes what MOS says. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I wouldn't say that COMMONNAME "supersedes" the MOS. WP:MOSAT implies that specific subject domains (such as law) can have naming conventions that don't follow COMMONNAME. Nonetheless, I still think it would be helpful to rephrase this MOS guideline to reflect the fact that we already have so many "Trial of..." articles on Wikipedia. Edge3 (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS may specify titles in rare cases that are out of line with the rest of WP:AT, but ultimately if there's a conflict in a significant number of cases, article titles as a policy would override the guideline. (t · c) buidhe 03:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's a policy or guideline, it's ultimately decided by how !voters weigh and interpret them. —Bagumba (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree a trial that sets a precedent, or is often cited for legal cases the State Vs. or using official legal name works better. Also as someone brought up in prior discussion, the MOS:LEGAL says we should use Bluebook format(normally), but the Bluebook says to only use "state vs" when citing within that state, otherwise use the State's name. Despite bluebook saying that, MOS then says to only use State regardless. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: Regarding State v. X cases, I think the reason for that MOS rule is that the case sets precedent only within that state, not in other states. In most instances, the case would be notable to Wikipedia only within the context of the specific laws and public policy of that state. Edge3 (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The precedent being set or any other legal ramifications I really don't think was considered for the MOS. Regardless with State or NY/CA/FL/w.e, the same concept applys either way. Saying Florida vs. XYZ doesn't imply precedent or policy anywhere else. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Further to my !vote in the move discussion, we probably should only have "State v. Defendant" case titles where the subject is the decision of an appellate court. BD2412 T 04:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: Actually, State v. Chauvin happens to include an appellate opinion on whether precedential opinions of the Minnesota Court of Appeals are binding authority immediately upon filing. This opinion addressed a rather narrow legal question, but it also led to the reinstatement of Chauvin's third-degree murder charge. I'm not sure whether this opinion is considered part of the criminal trial, or if legal researchers would consider them to be separate matters. In any case, I don't think MOS should draw distinctions between appellate vs. non-appellate filings, since a lot of high-profile criminal cases do get appealed for reasons that are not notable to Wikipedia. I think the better test is whether the case as a whole is notable for setting precedent. Edge3 (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There are at least tens of thousands of intermediate appellate opinions that would never merit an article of their own, that being one of them. BD2412 T 04:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Distinct from the related trial itself, but an article about a trial should mention things like that in proper sections (does, in this case). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with InedibleHulk, that "[State] v. [Defendant]" titles are better suited to trials that are best known because they set a legal precedent, while "Trial of [Defendant]" is better suited for trials that are best known because of who the defendant was or what the crime was. Per COMMONNAME. Also, "[State] v. [Defendant]" titles don't really apply to countries that use the inquisitorial system (judge-dominated) rather than the adversarial system (dominated by two arguing sides). Anywikiuser (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless the page is specifically (and almost exclusively) about a trial, I think I would probably oppose calling it "Trial of" X person. At least in most legal systems I am aware of trials do not occur in a vacuum and are preceded by investigations, arrests, motion practice, etc. and are followed by appeals. I could certainly envision a page that is exclusively (or almost exclusively) about a trial. For example, the OJ Simpson case could probably warrant a separate page just about the trial since it was such a circus. Maybe the Chauvin case could too. But if we're not having a separate trial-focused page, I think we should stick with either a common name or the official legal caption. But that's just my two cents. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have modified the guideline to reflect the opinions expressed in this discussion. Edge3 (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• This needs to be undone. The discussion has only been attended by people from the State v. Chauvin page due to OP's pinging. This needs an RfC, or at least more than 24 hours of discussion. It looks almost like this was done to covertly shut up anybody that brought up MOS:LAW in the ongoing, incessant pagemove proposals at the State v. Chauvin talk page. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In fact, I just reverted the addition. Please actually let a discussion take place rather than pulling the trigger because a bunch of canvassed !votes seem to agree with the outcome. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

    You were included in the list of people I pinged on my initial comment. (See above.) Also, more than 24 hours have already passed. Edge3 (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

    Edge3, ping doesn't work like that for IP users. 69.174.144.79, I forget that all the time and I hope you won't hold it against them (they did also post a comment in the move discussion). I think Edge3 did a good job of pinging all involved editors in that discussion, and I wouldn't describe it as canvassing.

    Now that this change is opposed, I think it's fair to stick to the old language for a while longer. Would anyone object to me posting about this discussion at the WP:LAW talk page? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

    @Firefangledfeathers: I think posting at WT:LAW makes sense. If the disagreement continues, it might also be worthwhile to open an WP:RFC. Edge3 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I would support “Trial of...” for trials that are notable more for their social impact than for legal issues, as proposed by InedibleHulk. In fact, my experience is that trials aren’t normally very significant for legal precedents, because if the major point in issue in a trial is the legal or constitutional question, there will be an appeal. What was the trial decision in Brown v Board of Éducation? It’s the outcome of the criminal trial that is significant, as in this case or the OJ Simpson case, not the legal rulings that may have been made in the course of the trial. Plus, depending on the system of state decisis in a particular court system, trial courts may not actually have precedential effect, because one trial judge can’t bind another trial judge of the same court on a point of law. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've restored my edit per the recent consensus at Talk:Trial of Derek Chauvin. Edge3 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm very new to Wikipedia and the conventions used here, but it seems slightly incongruous to refer to this page as the "Trial of Derek Chauvin" when so much of the content is outside the scope of the trial itself. I realize this might be a bit wordier, but "Prosecution of Derek Chauvin" would seem more accurate, since that would encompass both pre-trial activity and sentencing. NerdOfAllTrades42 (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few comments. First, I think everyone agrees that we're talking about criminal "cases" here, not simply trials in the literal sense. But as a few editors have pointed out, the problem is that describing a popular or notorious criminal case as "the case of XYZ" is not very common in everyday English, nor is it very common in academic English outside of criminal law casebooks used by law students and scholars. Thus, WP:COMMONNAME probably cuts against using that as our standard. I think InedibleHulk's suggestion of using "Trial of XYZ" or similar for popular criminal cases and using "X v. Y" for cases that are notable for jurisprudential reasons rather than popular notoriety is sensible.

Second, I think that "Trial of XYZ" or "Prosecution of XYZ" would both suffice here. "Prosecution of" is certainly more accurate in the strict sense, and would probably be natural enough to accord with WP:COMMONNAME.

Third, as a matter of personal philosophy, I dislike the idea of each WikiProject's editors setting up our own little style fiefdoms. I see no reason not to follow the project-wide MOS here.  White Whirlwind  22:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with "Prosecution of X". The prosecution ends when the prosecutor closes their case. Then there's the defence, and finally, the verdict, either by the jury or the judge alone. "Trial of X" includes the entire process; "Prosecution of X" does not. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether they are literally correct is irrelevant for COMMONNAME purposes. And even if they were, neither are literally true here. For example, the statement "Trial includes the entire process" is not true. Even in its broadest sense, a trial only begins with the filing of a complaint or information, or with a grand jury's indictment in the older common law system still used in America. But an article about a notorious criminal case will probably always include information on the initial investigation that precedes the filing of any charges or the seeking of an indictment. Thus, neither "trial" or "prosecution", or even "case" for that matter, will ever be perfectly accurate.  White Whirlwind  05:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding link to Canadian legal citations

The section on Canadian legal citations refers to the McGill Guide, but notes that it is proprietary. However, Queen's University Law Library has provided a summary of the citation methods recommended by the McGill Guide. Any problem with adding a link to the Queen's University page? It would provide guidance on how to cite Canadian legal matters. https://guides.library.queensu.ca/legalcitation-mcgill-9th Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on style for law names

I've begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Conflicting styles for names of laws, seeking to clarify how to style the names of laws here. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Attention to updating of MOS guidelines

I came across this recent ongoing discussion and previously too I have gone through some other discussions. Here I am not interested in political part of those. Here concern is limited about How to handle encyclopedic legal reporting including in cases of BLP?

• I suppose at least some or most editors may not be aware of following guideline.

Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority.
— - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal#Guidelines

• Indian judiciary seem to have allowed live reporting of legal proceedings. I am suggesting following updates to the guideline with appropriate inputs and copy editing from other editors; or may be a guidance essay where consensus for updating guidelines is not possible.

1. Keep in mind legal proceedings are not final legal judgements.
2. If at all live reporting is being used for referencing then priority should go first to reporting by media specialized in legal reporting. Even law reporters may miss some words or sentences while reporting on legal proceedings so crosscheck with one more media specialized in legal reporting for corroboration. Next priority to High quality media reporting RS but where reporter is verifiably specialized in legal reporting.
3. Where reporters and opinion givers do not have legal background even if in RS media be played down if alternate source with legal background available.
4. Remember even popular RS news media not written by legal correspondent may have propensity of using words and headlines for additional attraction of readers or legal nuances may during their effort of excessive simplification. Also note print space provided by RS news media is always going to be limited and some topics may not have got adequate coverage and due balance and weight in legal point of view.
5. Lower/ trial court judgements should not be presented with undue weight. If at all need to be presented it should be crystal clear to the reader that it is just trial court judgement open to further appeal or not appealed.
6. Priority should go for Supreme court then Appellate court high court judgements
7. Among secondary sources priority should go for Latest Academic legal reviews / jurisprudence from RS books and Law journals covering the given topic; magazines and news media specializing in law and then legal luminary opinions in RS news media.
8. Here we do not have any hurry to finalize on above points. If we have multiple similar cases to discuss legal point of view then that will bring better balance and neutrality. Please feel free to suggest modification addition subtraction, copy edit.

I will be pinging editors from above mentioned discussion plus users who previously participated in building and discussing this MOS please feel free if you know users who are interested and know of legal nuances.

I also ping @Kautilya3 since discussed one of above points in some other discussion. @SoloKnowHow83, @Tayi Arajakate @CrusaderForTruth2023 @RegentsPark Bookku (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging few previous participants of MOS t/p if active. @Legis, Msh210, and DeirdreAnne:
• Ping these users may be less active now but seem to have participated some good discussion previously @Francis Davey, James500, DeirdreAnne, Savidan, Epeefleche, and Thepm: Checked in this t/p history more users seem to be active I will ping more if no one will get offended for pinging more users for more inputs.

• I really don't see a need to change MOSLAW, it seems to me that it already covers it, as you noted, Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority. That, along with the current BLP guidelines is sufficient. We don't want to make the rules too technical, it just fosters harassment of content creators. GregJackP Boomer! 18:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Directly summarizing primary legal documents is dangerous but so is summarizing secondary sources in the media who will react to public statements and impressions instead of the real legal issues. As a generality we should not turn encyclopedia entries about important case law into a collection of public statements or news reactions. Instead we should push to focus on the major decisions of the judge and the analysis of those decisions by legal scholars. We need to keep in mind that most journalists do not understand the legal issues and that they are often repeating the opinions of the disputing parties who are tempted to make claims in public that they know they couldn't possibly get away with under the legal scrutiny of a judge. You have a lot of good suggestions to protect against false or non-neutral information and I would even want to make the guideline more specific. Jorahm (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• This guideline is focused on exclusively legal articles. We shouldn't extend its scope to BLPs. Btw, in India, LiveLaw and Bar & Bench live tweet court proceedings. Their reporters carry phones inside courtrooms. Their analyses and columns on their website are much better than mainstream Indian news. Some Indian courts have officially started broadcasting parts of the proceedings. I don't think live reporting for referencing on wikipedia is an issue to begin with. When trivial details are reported in the media, they are usually removed because of wp:notnews anyways. And for high profile individuals, such guidelines would be futile because editors are influenced by significant coverage, even if the details are trivial. See Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal. In high profile BLPs, even interim orders, appeals, media's reactions to proceedings, will get significant coverage. — hako9 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• A note of existing relevant policies.

• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS :

  ".. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication .."

• WP:SOURCEDEF :

  ".. Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. .."

Bookku (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY guideline suggests

".. Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. .."

Bookku (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Some edits for study

• [4], [5] No issue whether factual or not. Here case is not supported by secondary source. And self interpretation by users not initiated to MoS/legal can lead to synthesis unknowingly at times.
• Talk:Monique Ryan#Sally Rugg Affidavit

Bookku (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot, Shakescene, and Scope creep: this may be related to some of the stuff we're doing. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Elinruby:. I will read this. scope_creep^Talk 19:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Study of discussion @ Talk:Disqualification of R G

• Talk:Disqualification of Rahul Gandhi#Surname, but who's?

Pl. note this discussion is not interested in political part of the original BLP articles

1) Text presently in the article

"...after an Indian court convicted .."

There is an alternate sentence suggested in highlighted quote

"... after an Indian court convicted .."

Here it seems to missing information that above cited conviction is at trial court level and at least two more appeal levels are there.

2) One user says

".. One source (Guardian) states that the cases are of defamation of people with surname .. while the other (BBC) says "Prime Minister..'s surname". .."

the other user replies

.. whereas for RS, the latter is the central point. ..

Here a user is relying on news media considered RS in general on Wikipedia. But such reliance seem to miss contextual point, Which RS is better in reporting 'legal nuances'? Whether respective news reporters and analyst have any background in legal reporting or not?

No doubt both the users in above cited discussion are making their respective arguments in good faith and seem to be experienced editors. Here point is to have easy to understand encyclopedic guidelines on legal nuances.

Bookku (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Difference in news reports, which one to rely on?

A blasphemy case against a Chinese national covered in Blasphemy in Pakistan#Selected cases, the Chinese national is subsequently released on bail. Case is not closed and two news media report differently.

• Reuters Ref :

  .. The court said it had granted bail because there alleged offence appeared to be "the result of a misunderstanding". ..

• Bloomberg Ref :

  .. A Chinese citizen accused of blasphemy in Pakistan was released on bail after an anti-terror court ruled that no offense had been committed. .. The main accuser in the blasphemy case kept changing his statement and bail has been granted until the case is concluded, which may take a few months, according to a police official. ..

Reauters statement mentions only that, alleged offence appeared to be "the result of a misunderstanding" where as Bloomberg clearly states "an anti-terror court ruled that no offense had been committed " again provides self-contradicting information meaning "case is still not concluded."

Which would be more reliable to include in the article and any guideline possible ? to deal with such cases?

Bookku (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know of any specific guideline but I think I know the answer I would start by checking the date and then the name of the spokesperson. Then look for other coverage, because a misunderstanding about terrorism is probably inherently notable, so there likely *is* other coverage.

If I had quotes from both sources already in the text, I'd start by verifying the quotes then the references, then do the above if that didn't work. Offhand I would probably give Reuters a little more weight because the probably cover breaking news from courthouses mire often and for longer, so they probably have sources, whereas Bloomberg is more geared to Wall Street etc. Unless money is involved. I'm pretty sure they are both considered reliable from an RSN PoV Elinruby (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I liked your reply suggesting step by step verification. And also, 'Then look for other coverage,' is also a cool idea. Main purpose of holding such discussion here is developing guidelines or essay which will be provide ease to sort out legal reporting in Wikipedia articles. Bookku (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the above is not a bad process. It's not always necessary to do that full list -- most of the bad articles I look at are bad translations, but I am assuming that anything mentioning terrorism probably has pov possibilities maybe starting from the sources of the secondary sources Elinruby (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Abbreviation at first mention

When abbreviating an act (or similar) at first mention, I recommend avoiding "the act", as such:

The Yukon Human Rights Commission (the commission) was created in 1987 to promote equality and diversity through research, education, and enforcement of the Yukon Human Rights Act (the act). ^{(from Old revision of Human rights in Canada#Yukon Human Rights Commission)}

Instead, give a commonly accepted acronym in parentheses, or no abbreviation. Using “the act” to refer to a previously mentioned act through the body of an article is fine, but does not need signposting and should be used as normal language allows. Similar considerations should be made for other similar legalisms.

I only bring it up, because I have seen it a lot lately (often in Canadian articles for some reason). It may be a by-product from copy-pasting, or it may be just legal-minded editors writing from what we’re used to. Funnily enough, half the time, the abbreviation isn’t even used later. I am in two minds about adding this guidance to the MOS. First, I don’t want to accidentally suggest that “the act” is never used to abbreviate later, and second, to explain that would take a good chunk of text (as above) for something that has not proved to be terribly problematic. Perhaps something to just keep in mind for now. — HTGS (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

And we don't need "(the Commission)" either. This is a bad legalese/bureaucratese habit that has nothing to do with how to write an encyclopedia, but is only about legally defining a shorter stand-in term for one of the parties to an action. And we would capitalize neither "commission" nor "act" used as stand-alone words, for the same reason we don't write "Gutierrez graduated from Havard University in 1987. While at the University ...".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

You and I are on the same page: [6]. I didn’t mention the uppercase for simplicity, but yeah, the example should probably use lower. — HTGS (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)