Wikidata:Property proposal/majority opinion

majority opinion by

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Done: majority opinion by (P5826) (Talk and documentation)

Description	Per Wikipedia: In law, a majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.
Data type	Item
Template parameter	|decision by= in w:en:Template:Infobox court case |Majority= in w:en:Template:Infobox SCOTUS case
Domain	court decision (Q327000) legal case (Q2334719)
Example	Roe v. Wade (Q300950) → Harry Blackmun (Q1323255)
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974) It should be eventually complete because all judges should eventually be identifiable by item, or should the project not want them all on wikidata, allowing an external-id.
See also	w:en:Majority opinion, w:en:Concurring opinion, w:en:Dissenting opinion

Motivation

As can be seen in w:en:Template:Infobox court case and w:en:Template:Infobox SCOTUS case and others, and summarized in w:en:Template:Judicial opinions, a court opinion is often considered to have a well understood substructure. One such common substructure is the majority opinion. It is essentially a work within a given work, with it's own authors and associate authors ("joined by"). But this property encodes more information, i.e., that the item is the author of an assumed creative work, and that the item is part of an assumed event where the assumed work was the winner--e.g., there is an assumed work that was voted by the majority, and the item is its author.

In time, this property would need to have associated properties as can be seen in the infoboxes: majority, dissenting, plurality, etc. There may be a way to use existing properties and items to convey this, but I cannot see it. It would need a "joined by" qualifiers. I am looking to implement this in an infobox, so it should be structured such that the Wikipedia infoboxes can transclude it automatically. esbranson (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support For infoboxes David (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Support NMaia (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Would it make sense to use has part(s) (P527) → majority opinion (Q6738447), and use author (P50) → majority author and contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) → those joining? esbranson (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment I would expect the value of a property named "majority opinion" to be an item for the text of the opinion as a work, not the author of the opinion. Maybe this needs a different label, if it is to go ahead, or maybe some other change in data model here such as that suggested by Esbranson above. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Would "majority opinion by" be a better name? esbranson (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment for this field, shouldn't there be other options as well? Is the main item about the issue or the majority view? In the first case, could this be applied to other fields? e.g. pro/con/abstain/other 1/other 2, each with a list of people in qualifiers?
  --- Jura 16:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • These majority/concurrence/dissent parts are like sections of an article (or chapters of a book). The item-value is implied to be a work, an instance of majority/concurrence/dissent, (usually) with a specific author. And yes, each such item-value is also implied to be like an issue or event or vote, where each person-voter can agree/agree-in-part-and-disagree-in-part/disagree/abstain. I am unsure how to model this without creating properties and qualifiers from scratch in which these aspects are implied by context. esbranson (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) esbranson (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Shouldn't we have items for the majority opinions themselves, with author information, a link between the item for the case and the opinion, and ideally a Wikisource link to the text itself? I don't think that the model proposed here would work very well. --Yair rand (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment @Esbranson: Sorry I forgot to respond earlier. Maybe an approach as follows could work for this and other fields to:

  Roe v. Wade (Q300950) <has opinion> → majority opinion (Q6738447) or <pro> or <contra> or <minority opinion>

  qualifier: statement supported by (P3680) Harry Blackmun (Q1323255)

  qualifier: statement is subject of (P805) <a detailed item about the majority opinion/etc> (if there is one)
  --- Jura 07:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Although I know nothing about this, I have the feeling that the way enwiki models this information in infoboxes suggests that this is a sensible data model. I doubt we want to create items for the majority opinion works themselves. − Pintoch (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment I updated the label as proposed above − Pintoch (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Esbranson, ArthurPSmith, NMaia, Pintoch, Jura1: @Yair rand:  Done: majority opinion by (P5826). − Pintoch (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)