This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ka7wq8eic098wrbcu0q93webv790w3e8nb8 does not seem like a legitimate title for an article dealing with Constitutions. Might want to have a look into this. Given that I have never read this article, I do not know what was previously in place of ka7wq8eic098wrbcu0q93webv790w3e8nb8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe that they have left that there and have not fixed it after this amount of time 22.214.171.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I find a lot of stuff on this page confusing and somewhat redundant such as the paragraph about Latin systems (without really mentions what are latin systems, are these civil law countries?). I've tried to clarify what I can but I do not want to remove any information that may really be useful, also some of this information may better belong on the Constitutional law page. — Alex756 23:08 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
I have reorganized most of it so that it (hopefully) makes more sense now. I have also moved some stuff over to Constitutional amendment, which was linked to from several places, but had not existed yet. djmutex 15:20 5 July 2003 (UTC)
This is an important article, and it is a pity it still suffers from the Wikipedia disease of heaped up lists where there should be a coherent summary. The problem is limited to the section I have now called Constitution#Pre-modern_constitutions. These are not so much "constitutions" in the modern sense, and the dwelling on a list of what are really predecessors of the type of document the article should be discussing, the list should really be exported and replaced by a short paragraph about the early history of the concept. I am not disputing that these "are" constitutions, that depends entirely on your definition of the word. But I insist that they are of marginal interest here and should not clutter up the page as they do. After all, and for good reason, the "Modern" section also does not consist of an alphabetical list of the 190 constitutions of the current-day sovereign states of the world. --dab(𒁳) 14:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It's important to discuss what the earliest predecessors were and they are not "cruft". Should we not set the record straight and tell what the predecessors were? There are still people who think there were no predecessors other than the Magna Carta because that's what they have been taught. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The pargraph in the opening about the longest an shortest text seems oddly out of place. Imo it has no added value and would be more suitable in a trivia section. Or be deleted entirely. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)