The help page says:

If you are looking for the law in a particular area, please tag your question with the appropriate jurisdiction tag (e.g. united-states, texas, new-york-city, england-and-wales). Even if you supply a jurisdiction tag, we expect and encourage answers dealing with other jurisdictions – while it might not answer your question directly, your question will be here for others who may be from those jurisdictions. If you do this, please tag your answer using the tag markdown: [tag: some-tag].

This suggests that if you are not looking for the law in a particular area, there is no need for a jurisdiction tag.

Quite a while ago, not knowing about this policy, user Someone created the tag , which is somewhat redundant because of this policy. It seems to have been received well by other users, though; it is currently used on 205 questions (124 by the most-frequent user of the tag, 38 from the second-most-frequent user, and 12 from the third-most-frequent user).

Should every question be tagged with either a location-specific jurisdiction tag or ? Or conversely, is it okay to leave a question untagged when you don't care where an answer comes from?

If the community prefers an explicit I'll follow along.

I ask because I have been told that not specifying "any-jurisdiction" "misleads the community who is trying to help" and that I could "use that loophole to play mind tricks with those who are try to help." I am not sure in what sense I could use it as a "loophole." Without a tag, people would answer my question from a variety of jurisdictions. The only side effect is that I'd be more informed than I would have been otherwise. It doesn't sound like a downside to me or the community to have answers from multiple jurisdictions. I don't mean to pick on or give too much significance to this one critique, but it is a perspective I had not considered and admittedly do not understand.

  • 1
    For info: User Someone and I jointly contributed to the content of this question, as they had nearly simultaneously asked essentially the same question. We decided it would be best to just ask a single question, and Someone included the background context about the tag's creation in this question.
    – Jen
    Commented Jan 14 at 17:29
  • Moderators: I have tagged this "feature request" in case there is an easy way for a moderator to implement the apparent community position that has come out in the voting on the given answers. (E.g. bulk removal of the tag without bumping the questions?)
    – Jen
    Commented Jan 16 at 21:34
  • 1
    If a mod tags this with [status-review], the tag removal request will be passed down the line. There's apparently a developer tool that can do it.
    – Laurel
    Commented Jan 17 at 21:58
  • @Jen time to accept and lock up here!
    – Trish
    Commented Jun 4 at 7:16

3 Answers 3


Follow Stack Rules and say: BEGONE!

It is policy that any jurisdiction is demanded in answers not matching the question jurisdiction.

As such, the tag serves no purpose - answers that don't match the jurisdiction need to be tagged anyway, and no jurisdiction means all answers need tags. As a result, the tag is a tag-tax and meta-tag. Those should not exist in the first place. As such I propose to delete the tag altogether and declare it an invalid tag.

  • 2
    It would be a great idea to use the ask page modal to warn new users that they need to specify a jurisdiction if they want a specific answer.
    – Laurel
    Commented Jan 17 at 21:39
  • 1
    @Laurel that'd be a separate proposal, but indeed, a good addition.
    – Trish
    Commented Jan 17 at 21:46
  • 1
    Yeah but I'm kinda hoping that someone with more time and experience with the site can write a proposal since the modal should mention the other important things to keep in mind while asking a Law question.
    – Laurel
    Commented Jan 17 at 21:53
  • @Laurel, Trish: how does this look? law.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1846/…
    – Someone
    Commented Jan 22 at 0:15

The tag has been bulk removed and blocked, per the consensus reached on this post.


Suggestion: Require jurisdiction tags on all questions

Creating was not really necessary, and if I'd known about the policy when I created it, I wouldn't have. However, now that it is somewhat established and used regularly, I think it is helpful.

New users often don't know that they should indicate a jurisdiction if they care about a particular one; because of this, and especially now that exists and is used somewhat often, the lack of a tag is not really equivalent to . More often, though not always, it means that the user isn't aware of jurisdiction tags, and does care about a particular jurisdiction but didn't know to tag the question as such.

Because the author's intent is ambiguous without a jurisdiction tag, and the role formerly filled by the deliberate lack of one is now more clearly filled by , I believe we should require jurisdiction tags for all questions, and close new questions without them as "needs details or clarity" if it cannot be determined from the question whether the user is interested in one particular jurisdiction.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .