Talk:Law/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

first talk

As mentioned in the archived discussion pages, this article is a real mess.

It has a huge paragraph disambiguating law from physics instead of an introduction, four or so sub-articles which don't fit together and contradict each other, and then a six or so lists of links. The lists of links (legal systems, "branches" of law, and so on) get decreasingly wordy and comprehensive as the article progresses.

The opening definition of law makes the claim that law is often referred to as a "human legal code" when contrasted with physical laws and so on. According to Google, this claim is simply false. The phrase "human legal code" only appears twice on Google once Wikipedia content is excluded, and in both cases the phrase is not used as a term of art, but in some sort of discussion about the divine authorship of the Old Testament.

is this done yet?

As someone else has suggested, jurisprudence wants its own article (and of course, already has one!), so we should get rid of that section.

done

Law as an academic discipline is far too long for a general article about law as a social phenomenon, and the details of what your qualification is abbreviated to in Canada are totally out of place.

done

Legal systems should probably have its own article, now that it has been reseparated from branches of law. Branches of law should be integrated instead with the huge list of legal subject areas. As "branches of law, a sampling", it even admits it's not comprehensive, which invites the question of why some subject matter areas get their own paragraph and others are relegated to the list of links in the next section.

part done - legal systems now has own article

"Codification of law" seems like someone's attempt to put a subject heading on "law as codification", and should be at the most renamed. It manages to get in a definition of what law is, which would do better in the introduction.

not done yet

Mk270 19:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Effectively, no-one has responded to this complaint, nor has anyone materially objected as some of the above recommendations were implemented. Six months having now elapsed, I propose to carry out the remainder of the recommendations. Mk270 19:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

A link to Condominium law does not belong on this page, if anything it is something that should appear in an article about real property, and then if the content merits a separate page that page should be written. I will leave this comment here for a few days, if no one objects I will remove the sentence of condo law to the real property page. Alex756 15:19, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Probably not on this page, agreed, but it could go under property (or real estate) law, which doens't seem to have a link. I am afraid condo law may degenerate into condo rules not actual law, if careful distinction isn't made. But there is still enough law about condos for an article. Rmhermen 16:00, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I feel somewhat guilt about neglecting this article. It seems to have deteriorated considerably. I note the following:

"In ethics and moral philosophy this type of law is often called a "human legal code" to distinguish it from more fundamental laws applicable to all beings (metaphysics, ontology). Such a body of laws can be seen as a legally-enforced ethical code or as a "secular moral code" (to the degree that political leaders replace religious leaders as moral examples)"

It is a commonplace that many laws have only a regulative content and are essentially divorced from both ethics and morals (although a moral and ethical duty to obey the law remains).

I note also the development of a jurisprudence section which probably should be moved and developed at jurisprudence. Fred Bauder 14:14, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Back in April a user called Shino Baku (or similar) initiated a series of edits, one of whose effects was to combine the section on legal systems with that on "branches" of law. One of the effects of this was to conflate the various meanings of "civil law" (as a legal system and as a body of law within particular legal systems). At any rate, the user in question was subsequently accused of being some sort of troublemaker and his/her account suspended, and I'd like to now propose the reversal of his/her unannounced major change to the article, and remove the conflation of legal systems and "branches" of law. Mk270 09:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

I remember interacting with User:Shino Baku and finding the questions and reasoning that were being put forth by this user to be confused and confusing. I think straightening this out is a good idea and I thought about that too, but did not want to seem to autocratic about it being just one person making the suggestion. SB also made a bunch of other edits to law related articles that were problematic. Alex756 00:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Of course, we should prefer "the change was a bad one" to "the change was made by a bad user" as our reason for reversal. My reasons would be that legal systems and areas of law are effectively orthogonal: the legal system of each country will probably cover each of these areas of law; if the "branches of law" list went Employment Law, English Law, French Law, Land Law, US Federal Law, it would be patently ridiculous. To a limited extent, the notion of law being both all-encompassing and simultaneously compartmentalisable into discrete units as "branches", differentiated by subject matter, is not strictly neutral as between different legal traditions: most uncodified common law legal systems would not have such pretensions ... but at least this offsets the Anglocentrism of the rest of the article!

At any rate, reverting to the status quo ante the Shino Baku change would be a major reorganisation, and one which perhaps ought to be done in combination with a shakedown between the current competition between "law" and "the law" in the article. Mk270 18:12, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There having been no objection here for three months, I have carried out the proposed change, separating legal systems from "branches" of law. Mk270 19:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

See Mediawiki:law to edit the law sidebar. -SV(talk) 08:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the following two external links as they were not about the broader subject of law. --Zigger 01:49, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

• http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/
• http://AttorneysLawyersLawFirms.com/

---

TO long should we put a notice on wikipedia main page ? Paladine

Definitions in the mess

I agree that this article just isn't well. I have been reading some of the equivalent articles in other Wikipedias (in other languages) and they seem much better.

This article should start by saying that one of the problems in law is that nobody agrees on how to define it.

It would be hepful to put here a collection of different definitions of law by different authors. Perhaps starting with Ulpian...

Another important point would be to make a distinction between an «external» and an «internal» (following Herbert_Hart; but other words could be used) perspective about law. The former one is «sociological» (there we talk about a kind of interactions and social processes), the latter is «legal» (here we say, for instance, that law is a set of norms). These are really different things. Law sociologists and lawyers don't talk about the same when they say «law».

Well, I'm not sure I'd start with Ulpian, and certainly not with Gaius ;), but this page does need a much better structure. A look at the German and Dutch pages on Law is instructive. These people are basically writing about a Germanic or Romanistic conception of law, which purportedly affords easy categories around which to structure the article, so I guess they have a head start. More importantly, German wikipedia has these portals, and so all those lists of this and lists of that which make up so much of the English article are not present, simplifying the picture. I think they should be split off in the English page too.

Mk270 19:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Litigation?

I find it somewhat disturbing that in this article, the word "litigation" does not appear. I'm sure it has a place somewhere in this article, as it has a fundamental place in the law. After some digging around, I've found that Wikipedia redirects queries about "litigation" to "civil law". I know the list of areas of law is not comprehensive, but it would be beneficial to anyone who is reading the article to be able to quickly associate litigation with civil law. Can anyone find a comfortable niche for the word, or supply an adequate reason for its absence? Thanks! Zephlon 20:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notable law firm?

There is currently an interesting VfD going on in relation to a 60-lawyer law firm. What is at stake is whether this law firm is notable. Your opinion is welcome, here. Thanks. --Edcolins 09:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Legal systems of the world

I think this article could use more description on the spectrum of legal systems around the world. I was reading a webpage [1] describing the dominant legal systems of the world and the locations where they are practiced. The articles and accompanying map were particularly illustrative. This article could benefit from this sort of info. Any takers? -- PullUpYourSocks 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

This article is in a real poor state. I'm hoping to do some major editing soon. My major thought it to make it broader in scope. Too much of the article right now is about to north american legal practices and there is not enough about the meaning of "law". If you'd like to discuss it, please do. --PullUpYourSocks 03:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section originally entitled "discussion". It reads like an essay, it mixes opinion with philosophy with fact, all using very vague generalizations. It's really hard to get a sense of what law in the world looks like. In all, it's not appropriate for an encycopedia. Here it is for those who might be able to save some of it:

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by him who has the care of the community.

Most laws and legal systems—at least in the Western world—are quite similar in their essential themes, arising from similar values and similar social, economic, and political conditions, and they typically differ less in their substantive content than in their jargon and procedures. Communication between legal systems is the focus of legal translation and legal lexicography, which deals with the principles of producing a law dictionary.

One of the fundamental similarities across different legal systems is that, to be of general approval and observation, a law has to appear to be public, effective, and legitimate, in the sense that it has to be available to the knowledge of the citizen in common places or means, it needs to contain instruments to grant its application, and it has to be issued under given formal procedures from a recognized authority.

In the context of most legal systems, laws are enacted through the processes of constitutional charter, constitutional amendment, legislation, executive order, rulemaking, and adjudication. Within common law jurisdictions, rulings by judges are an important additional source of legal rules; within civil law jurisdictions, rulings do not constitute de jure for the future, but in practice, jurisprudence is often quite equivalent to common law precedent.

However, de facto laws also come into existence through custom and also tradition. (See generally Consuetudinary law; Anarchist law.)

Law has an anthropological dimension. In order to have a culture of law, people must dwell in a society where a government exists whose authority is hard to evade and generally recognised as legitimate. People take their grievances before the government and its agents, who arbitrate disputes and enforce penalties.

This behaviour is contrasted with the culture of honor, where respect for persons and groups stems from fear of the disproportionate revenge they may exact if their person, property, or prerogatives are not respected. Cultures of law must be maintained. They can be eroded by declining respect for the law, achieved either by weak government unable to wield its authority, or by burdensome restrictions that attempt to forbid behaviour prevalent in the culture or in some subculture of the society. When a culture of law declines, there is a possibility that an undesirable culture of honor will arise in its place.

A particular society or community adopts a specific set of laws to regulate the behavior of its own members, to order life in its political territory, to grant or acknowledge the rights and privileges of its citizens and other people who may come under the jurisdiction of its courts, and to resolve disputes.

There are several distinct laws and legal traditions, and each jurisdiction has its own set of laws and its own legal system. Individually codified laws are known as statutes, and the collective body of laws relating to one subject or emanating from one source are usually identified by specific reference. (E.g., Roman law, Common law, and Criminal law.) Moreover, the several different levels of government each produce their own laws, though the extent to which law is centralized varies. Thus, at any one place there can be conflicting laws in force at the local, regional, state, national, or international levels. (See conflict of laws, Preemption of State and Local Laws.)

I appreciate everyone bearing with me. I’ve removed quite a bit of older material, but much of it has only been relocated so hopefully not much has been lost. My accuracy with some of the facts may be leave something to be desired, but I think the new layout is much more sound than it ever was. Any comments on what more is needed or what should be put back in would be welcome. PullUpYourSocks 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources of law

Any idea where this and source of law should redirect?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to say. To me, its meaning is entirely dependant on what "law" you are talking about. I removed the section by that name in this article because it was confusing as to who used which "source". The fact of the matter is, each tradition has their own "source", or even more precisely, each country has their own variation on the sources of law. Consequently, the "source of law" should likely be mentioned within either the legal tradition and probably not in this page. I'm not very comfortable with the idea of listing, say, five different sources of law and then saying "some countries use certain of these sources while others don't". It's cleaner just to leave it out. PullUpYourSocks 12:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Having thought it over, perhaps a "sources of law" section wouldn't be totally out of line. I still have a lot of reservations about it, but if someone can make it less western-centric than the old one, I could be convinced. PullUpYourSocks 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could move here the text you removed from the article, and we can work on this to make it better?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Though I have doubts about excluding the section, (in a large part because the source of law it seems worth mentioning somewhere) I still remain sceptical about the section and especially the old version. The previous one consisted almost entirely of examples from select countries, and what inevitably happens is that each person who reads it feels compelled to distinguish their own country's law to maintain balance. This usually results in a terrible mess. Much of the rewrite of the article was with a view to remove concrete examples and move them into more confined articles. My doubts about removal of the "sources of law" section are based on the possibility that there may be substantial content to put in the section that does not include pure lists of examples. However, I can't think of what that content would be. As a compromise, I would propose to put a mention of possible sources of law somewhere in the lead-in or else in the beginning of the "legal traditions" section. Perhaps somethings like: "The laws of each legal tradition are typically derived from any number of sources including a constitution, statute, code, case law, or custom." Any further suggestions would be welcome. -PullUpYourSocks 13:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This sentence is definetly a good beginning. The 'sources of law by country' is useful, if only as an addition to a more general article/section (I came here after creating an article on Dziennik Ustaw, a Polish source of law, see also promulgation).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just and Fair?

I see that law, according to the article, provides an outcome that is "just and fair." Furthermore, a culture of law contrasts with a culture of honour, where "respect for persons and groups stems from fear of the revenge they may exact if their person, property, or prerogatives are not respected."

It might be helpful if anyone could give an example of a place where law is practiced, as opposed to honour. I'm unaware of any legal system in this world that is both just and fair (or either), and that does not achieve its effect from instilling a fear of revenge. In North America, for example, fear of revenge of people with physical power has been largely replaced by fear of revenge of people with money.

In North America, laws are based on the indoctrinated views of the legal establishment, under the pretence of representing the people's wishes. The primary tool through which they are enforced is coercion. For example, some people are coerced into plea bargains, loopholes that get around the notion of reasonable doubt, while others are coerced into out-of-court settlements, in which those people or organizations with more money can destroy the lives of those with less, in order to simultaneously vindicate their egos, exact revenge, and make even more money. This is even more effective than a culture of honour, which merely exacts revenge.

The need for revenge, coupled with the need of lawyers to become wealthy, as well as perceptions of highly-paid judges (most of whom have no idea what a thousand dollars means to the average person) works together to escalate settlements to 5 to 10 times what the average person would think reasonable - except in defamation cases, where the amount is 20 to 50 times higher, due to the perceptions of those in the "posturing profession" of law, whose egos are so sensitive that a slight bruise (deserved or not) is equated with the loss of a limb.

Perhaps culture of dishonour would be more accurate? 24.64.223.203 08:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)