This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Qualified immunity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
There’ve been some fascinating recent developments that might undermine the basis for qualified immunity, as described in a NYT article and a California Law Review article, but I don’t understand the details well enough to add that info to the article. Could someone who understands this better add info about this? Elysdir ( talk) 16:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
As for citing WP:OR, that makes a case for gutting large swaths of this article that are referenced to justia.com and other primary sources.Yes, it certainly does, if what we're doing is interpreting rather than merely reporting. In the paragraph you added that I removed, you were interpreting the case. Sure, we can use primary sources judiciously. But primary sources are not the basis on which an article should be written. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This article's statements about qualified immunity now show up in google summaries. If a random person googles topics about qualified immunity, one of the top results will come from here. I know this because I am a lawyer who is well versed in qualified immunity, and kept seeing completely wrongheaded notions about the doctrine over and over again in social media circles. Specifically, people googling the topic seem to believe that various states have "passed laws" that purportedly "abolish qualified immunity" in that state.
Any lawyer in this area can confirm that this is legal gibberish and complete nonsense. A state legislature cannot abolish the doctrine of qualified immunity, which is based on the federal courts' statutory interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, a federal statute. The states that have supposedly "ended" qualified immunity only did so within the context of their local state-law claims. This has absolutely no bearing on Section 1983 or the broader debate about qualified immunity.
Frankly I think the entire section on "state law" should be deleted as causing misinformation and confusion. But I took the more cautious approach and have instead just edited the section to clarify the distinctions between state law and federal law. I hope this stops polluting google results with the junk that was put in there in the first place. I still vote for deleting the section. Cbreitel ( talk) 14:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Qualified immunity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
There’ve been some fascinating recent developments that might undermine the basis for qualified immunity, as described in a NYT article and a California Law Review article, but I don’t understand the details well enough to add that info to the article. Could someone who understands this better add info about this? Elysdir ( talk) 16:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
As for citing WP:OR, that makes a case for gutting large swaths of this article that are referenced to justia.com and other primary sources.Yes, it certainly does, if what we're doing is interpreting rather than merely reporting. In the paragraph you added that I removed, you were interpreting the case. Sure, we can use primary sources judiciously. But primary sources are not the basis on which an article should be written. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This article's statements about qualified immunity now show up in google summaries. If a random person googles topics about qualified immunity, one of the top results will come from here. I know this because I am a lawyer who is well versed in qualified immunity, and kept seeing completely wrongheaded notions about the doctrine over and over again in social media circles. Specifically, people googling the topic seem to believe that various states have "passed laws" that purportedly "abolish qualified immunity" in that state.
Any lawyer in this area can confirm that this is legal gibberish and complete nonsense. A state legislature cannot abolish the doctrine of qualified immunity, which is based on the federal courts' statutory interpretation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, a federal statute. The states that have supposedly "ended" qualified immunity only did so within the context of their local state-law claims. This has absolutely no bearing on Section 1983 or the broader debate about qualified immunity.
Frankly I think the entire section on "state law" should be deleted as causing misinformation and confusion. But I took the more cautious approach and have instead just edited the section to clarify the distinctions between state law and federal law. I hope this stops polluting google results with the junk that was put in there in the first place. I still vote for deleting the section. Cbreitel ( talk) 14:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)