Talk:Law

Comments to Ceoil's copy-editing

• "In some countries, religion informs the law." Because of my poor English I am not sure of the meaning of "inform" here, so I don't know how close it is in terms of meaning to the previous version: "Some countries continue to base their law on religious texts."

'Base' is more accurate. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Public international law concerns relationships between sovereign nations." It may concern relationships of more than two nations, of more that 190 nations (UN)! So, I don't know if "among" or "between" is better. The same question about "practice and treaties between sovereign nations".

No openion. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Civil law is the legal system used in most countries around the world today. In civil law the sources recognised as authoritative are, primarily, legislation—especially codifications in constitutions or statutes passed by government—and custom." You removed "secondarily"; however, it is important to note that—especially nowadays—custom is a secondary source not equal in importance with the primary one: the legislation.

See below; unhappy with this whole section. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the rest of Ceoil's edits (until now!).--Yannismarou (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You wont offend me by disagreeing or reverting Yannis! I'm doing as best I'm able; which aint much....Ceoil ^sláinte 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Sorry if these cmts are blunt and badly worded but I'm just after my third "please come back to wikipedia later" loss of a full 20 minute edit; so I'm just going to post my brief notes here, and wade back in to the ce. Eek.

• The military and police of a state are sometimes referred to as "the long and strong arm of the law". --> stray sentance; neither 'long' nor 'strong' are explained. Probably best deleted.

• Deleted.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience, politics, economics and society --> is this exhaustive.
• In general, legal systems can be split between civil law jurisdictions and common law and equity. The term civil law should not be confused with civil law as a group of legal subjects, as distinct from criminal or public law. A third type of legal system --> Imprentiable. Knowing nothing, I took the first sentance to define three types: civil, common and and equity. Why jurisdictions?

• Common law and equity is one thing! I rephrased however, and I added a citation.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Each sub section should begin with a tight defintion, not a characteristic; eg "In civil law, the source is primarily legislation—especially codifications in constitutions or statutes passed by government, or accepted by custom.[1] Civil law is the legal system used in most countries around the world today" is unhelpful to the general and clueless reader. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• How can I define civil law! I can only present its characteristics and its differences from common law. Something the article does indeed.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for the HTML error

I asked Dr pda if he knew what might be causing the error in the page that is bombing out his scripts: he couldn't find anything.

So, I moved the text to my sandbox, and started systematically deleting page elements until the scripts came back to my tool box. This is the deletion that restored the scripts, so there's something wrong in the sources section. Next I restored the refs, and tried only deleting the "2"; didn't work. Then I removed ref begin and end; still doesn't work, so the problem is in the actual cite templates. Then I put everything else back, and removed the sources only to confirm; scripts work, so it's definitely in the cite templates. I couldn't identify it any further than that, but once I remove the citations, I can see that the readable prose is 7942 words and the scripts work. I've not had a problem with Dr pda's script on any other article, so there's something goofy going on here.

So, this page has some element that isn't working in IE7. I wonder if it's coming up against Wikipedia:Template limits or some other such strange thing. Nothing else I can do, but it could be causing other problems elsewhere, whatever it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it! I don't understand you, so I can't help! What you're writing is just Greek to me!!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary: there's some kind of problem somewhere in the article coding, it bombs out scripts and could be causing other problems we aren't yet aware of (on IE7), I've narrowed it down to the sources and can't take it any further, Dr pda may have more ideas, but if anything ever comes up in the future, the info above gives you as far as I was able to get on troubleshooting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. The URL in the reference

• (German) Savigny, Friedrich Carl von (1803). "Zu welcher Classe von Rechten gehört der Besitz?", Das Recht des Besitzes.

towards the end of the Printed sources section was broken; it should contain two double quotes ("), but the last one was missing. Spotting this was complicated by the fact that the first of these quote marks was already URL-encoded as %22. As to why this affects IE7 but not other browsers I have no idea; possibly the others have some sort of check for unmatched quotes. Dr pda (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The amazing Dr pda; all working now ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; phew. Thanks pda. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Further reading

Request for Comment: Does the article need the expanded further reading list of this version of the article? 18:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I had seen this awful IMO list for some time now, but I did not want to intervene, because there was still much tension in the air. So, I remained silent, but seeing that nobody seems interested in fixing it, I thought I had to raise my voice! In my last version of the article there were just 4-5 books in the list. But suddenly, User:Mervyn Emrys decided to add dozens of books! Probably, because he thought that I had something with a book he insisted on being added in both "References" and "Further Reading" etc. etc. It it not my problem why this happened, but that it resulted in something nasty! This is no bibliography list; it is an article. I intended to have in "Further Reading" just 3-5 books, and my effort was these books to be some of the most important in the field, which for the X or Z reasons were not used in the article, but it would be nice for the reader to know them because of their historical importance. Now, this list looks like something completely different: like a list of law books that me or you or he could have in her/his library! Not to mention that it makes "heavier" an already "heavy" article.

If there is no consensus or returning to my previous concise list with the 4-5 books (because for some reason this list was regarded as POV[?!]), then let's completely get rid of the "Further Reading" stuff and keep only the "References" list. But IMO this mess shouldn't stay there!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Yannis, you repeatedly refer to this article as "my" article. Don't you think that is overly proprietary for Wikipedia, where supposedly anybody can edit anything? Do you really think you own this space? Note the statement at the base of the edit space which says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Your characterization of edits submitted by others seems still to be a bit uncivil. Please tone down the rhetoric and the attitude. "Further Reading" is a list of books from which one may select books for further reading. It is not a sacred cow. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yannis is right, this is a sprawling list without focus. They should be on various pages, rather than simply this one. I'm moving most of them to Jurisprudence, and deleting irrelevant ones.

Also, Mervyn, your comments are not helpful. Wikidea 11:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I've deleted the lot. It's mostly American, so the appropriate page was there. For those of us who wrote the page, it will be recalled that the only things there originally were I think John Austin, and so other random stuff. Austin was in there because it was originally a reference, but I shortened the text of the jurisprudence passage, and didn't have a footnote for him, so he was just left hanging. Because this page is so well written and researched there is copious literature in the ordinary references section. That list did not really add anything and was out of place. Good on the person who wrote it up; but it was just more appropriate to have those books on particular pages. Wikidea 12:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So, is it your intention to compound Yannis' lack of civility with an edit war? From WP:Civility:

"These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")"

From Yannis above: "awful," "nasty." Judgmental tone? And what is the meaning of "It's mostly American, so the appropriate page was there."? Is this just more of the usual anti-American pap?

Wikidea, your approach seems arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of Wiki editing policies. I put a lot of effort into compiling that list of mainly classics, and you just trashed it. Is this the best you can do? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think that what Wikidea means is that if such a list is judged useful to be there (which I doubt, and probably Wikidea as well), then it should be representative of law worldwide, and not one-sidedly of the American law. After all, this is a criticism the article faced during FAR (anglo-centrism, common law-centrism). There is no reason to "feed" such criticisms. After all, I do not understand your red-linking of all these books. Do you intend to stub them?

I think that you should think about Wikidea's proposal to spread your sources in the appropriate pages, which is after all more useful for the reader, and more accurate encyclopedically IMO. I also praise your laborious and impressive work to gather all these books, but at the same time I also think that this is not the right place for it. In any case, I'll invite more users to express themselves here, adding the article in WP:RFC/A.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yannis, to what "proposal" do you refer? A "proposal" is usually about something in the future that has not yet happened. In this case, the entire section is gone, trashed, deleted, per Wikidea's statement above. "On second thought, I've deleted the lot." In what convoluted sense is this a "proposal?" It is already done.

And what do you mean by "red-linking?" If you refer to the fact that some of the titles appeared in red, it was my intention to figure out how to get rid of that. I was not aware it was offensive, and have not had time. Now that the list is gone, I am prevented from doing this. Also, there are other ways besides trashing somebody elses work to deal with allegations of "anglo-centrism, common law-centrism," are there not? Like, add some content and references to balance the article? I haven't seen any proposal to do that here. And what does "IMO" mean?

The very first contact I had with anyone in WP was when you bit my head off end of September for adding one sentence and a single scholarly reference to this article (Re: WP:BITE). When my edit disappeared repeatedly, I initially thought the server had malfunctioned or I had performed some "operator error," and put it back, not seeing any comment from you or anyone else indicating otherwise.

The behavior I have seen here, and the language in your previous comments, consistently seem to indicate you think this article is your private property and nobody but you (or your friends) can touch it. I don't think that is appropriate, or consistent with Wiki policies. Go ahead and post this page for comment. We'll see if your actions to date are considered appropriate. I expect most of the comments will come from your circle of friends, right? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw a request for comment posted on the wikiproject law page. I agree that the bibliography section is some what long, but it is a massive improvement over a 4-5 book list. 4-5 books would not be helpful for someone intending to write a paper on legal theories. The book list is comprehensive and not western centric. Did the 4-5 book list cover Islamic law? Because it is so long, it should be organized into sections, possibly mirroring the article itself. Is a compromise possible? Say 30 sources? 76.124.87.208 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The further reading section of every law textbook I ever read was 7-20 pages long, this is why I believe that 30 sources is sufficient for an article designed to encompass every aspect of the term law. Parts of this article are in dire need of revision. The lead sentence to the property law section is bizarre: "Property law governs valuable things that people call 'theirs'." This is fundamentally false. First year property law classes deal significantly with property in the possession of those who do not have ownership such as leases and life estates. Property law governs ownership and possession, as simple as that. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes cited Kant, Hegel, and Rousseau in his discussion of the law of possession, and there they are in the further reading section. It may be more productive to focus on the content of the article itself rather than the footnotes. Gx872op (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Typically I do not respond to edits of my contributions by others, which have happened often since I started here. Often they are improvements. I will discuss and cooperate with anyone who contacts me in a civil manner about how my contributions of content may be more appropriately placed or redistributed--before it happens, not after.

Deletions or removals are different.

If there had been any civil explanation or discussion with me before the “Further Reading” list was deleted from the “Law” article, I would have attempted to reach an accommodation. If I had known of the existence of other related articles where those sources might be more appropriate, I might have placed them elsewhere myself, given the opportunity. I would have done so based on familiarity with the contents of each title, not based merely on the keywords in the titles, possibly producing more relevant placements.

But I was not given an opportunity before action was taken.

Cooperation and negotiation require explanation and discussion BEFORE action. If discussion occurs only after action, it is not negotiation; it is capitulation to an act of dominance. I do not accept acts of dominance over me on Wikipedia. Nobody should, male or female. I will not. If anyone wishes to explain or discuss placement of my edits, I welcome an approach that does not contain insulting words or tone. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please note: On the RFC page for "society, sports, law or sex" (link in box at top of this talk section) there is a broken link "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title" which appears it should take you to the "Further Reading" list at issue here, but it does not. Anybody know why? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The RfC bot is sometimes not the brightest in the world, and appears not to be able to handle internal links too well. I have manually adjusted things to see if that helps. It appears to be working right now, but the bot may wipe out my changes in the next update, so we'll have to wait and see. In any case, I've added a clear header at the top of this section to try to head off any confusion. --Elonka 08:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (update) Sure enough, the bot wiped out my changes. I'm trying a different version that doesn't use the diff, to see if that works better. --Elonka 10:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am happy to see that my RfC attracts the attention, among others, from users who rarely edit Wikipedia. This is indeed impressive. And they are definitely not from "my circle". By the way, I would like to kindly ask User:Mervyn Emrys to stop holding me personally responsible for other people's actions, comments etc., for which I do not intend to apologize. Whatever I did during this RfC (including the invitation of a whole project) I did it publicly, and User:Mervyn Emrys can check my contributions in order to see all my related edits. It is not my style to act "behind closed doors". User:Mervyn Emrys is also kindly requested not to do against other users what he correctly asks not to be done against him, namely not to adopt an approach which contains "insulting words or tone", such as "Yannis is back, and this time he brought friends" (unsubstantiated assumptions written as an accusation), "I expect most of the comments will come from your circle of friends, right?" (again unsubstantiated assuptions and a rhetoric [also ironic?] question), "Yannis, you repeatedly refer to this article as "my" article" (distortion of my words, since I never said "my article" but only "my list" and "my version" in order to specify). Thank you all for your understanding!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • For best results, let's please keep this talkpage simply for discussing the contents of the Law article. If there are disputes between editors, can we move those to the user talkpages? Remember, here at the talkpage, we want to discuss content, not the contributors. Thanks, --Elonka 11:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree with you Elonka, and I welocome this constructive approach of yours. This was after all the intention and the spirit of my above comment, since I saw that because of certain personal comments this RfC was taking the wrong path.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no idea what Yannis refers to above when he writes "I would like to kindly ask User:Mervyn Emrys to stop holding me personally responsible for other people's actions, comments etc., for which I do not intend to apologize. Whatever I did during this RfC (including the invitation of a whole project) I did it publicly, and User:Mervyn Emrys can check my contributions in order to see all my related edits. It is not my style to act "behind closed doors"." Mervyn Emrys has NOT made any allegations about Yannis acting "behind closed doors." Is this merely the use of innuendo to smear somebody? A courtroom tactic? Surely readers will see through that.
• As for the "friends" business, I offer the following item from the talk page of Wikidea as substantiation of my observation (not "allegation" as he puts it):
• "Law
• Hi, pal! Could you possibly have a look at this thoughts of mine, and offer your input? Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)"
• It seems empirically evident from the talk in sections above this one that the two actually are "pals." I also note that Wikidea has removed from this talk section an uncivil comment he directed towards me as well as my civil response to it, apparently distorting the record of this discussion and possibly violating Wiki policies concerning deletion of material from talk pages not one's own.
• Neither Yannis nor Wikidea has responded to my questions above. Neither has yet done me the courtesy of informing me about where the 30 or so references that I provided--and which were summarily deleted from the Law article--actually went. I saw a brief edit diff saying they went somewhere, but I did not memorize it and cannot find it now. Neither has responded to my questions about the meaning of "IMO" or red-links.
• Both editors appear to demand a level of familiarity with Wikipedia from all other editors which they certainly could not have had when they began editing here. I've learned a great deal in the short time I've edited here, but I do not know yet how to use all the tools (or even what tools are available) and I do not know the titles of every article in Wikipedia. I guess this is some kind of fatal failing on my part, deserving of contempt. However, none of us was born with this knowledge, and some have been here much longer than I. (I have learned that the Law page is taboo).
• In many legal systems with which I am familiar, attornies are expected to be both champions of their clients and officers of the court, the latter meaning they are expected to "do justice." Perhaps this is not the case in Greece, but it is where I reside. Yannis appears to me to be an aggressive advocate for his cause, but I fail to see evidence he attempts to "do justice" in his comments here, or in his behavior towards me from the first contact. Rather, Yannis appears to have made himself the judge of what can be included in this article and who can make contributions. I have seen no evidence of the temperament or judgment necessary for an effective judge to "do justice."
• It was precisely because serious shortcomings are apparent in the article that I attempted to contribute here, not the least of them being the depiction of "property" mentioned by a different contributor to this discussion page, above. This article is a very long way from being a "Featured Article" by any reasonable standard, and it needs all the help it can get, not just from the editors who have contributed to it to date, but from a wider range of editors, through civil discourse and cooperation. The reponses to my efforts to date are not an effective way to obtain that cooperation and input. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn, the main problem with your attitude is that you consistently draw your own conclusion about various situations, without being really interested in learning what really has happened. The result is that you (probably unintentionally) tend to distort reality. For example, I read:

• "I also note that Wikidea has removed from this talk section an uncivil comment he directed towards me as well as my civil response to it, apparently distorting the record of this discussion and possibly violating Wiki policies concerning deletion of material from talk pages not one's own."

Mervyn this is how both yours and Wikidea's comment (correctly IMO) were removed. So, are you actually accusing Elonka of "apparently distorting the record of this discussion and possibly violating Wiki policies concerning deletion of material from talk pages not one's own"?! This is how you drew the conclusion that I regard this as "my" article (which I never did, because in this case I would have written it completely differently), that there will be orchestrated comments during the RfC against your opinions, that I mobilize my friends against you etc. etc. etc. But I do not know if anybody is anymore convinced by these accusations.
I would also like to stress that I never offended or spoke negatively about anybody's country, so I think that your comment concerning my own country ("In many legal systems with which I am familiar, attornies are expected to be both champions of their clients and officers of the court, the latter meaning they are expected to "do justice." Perhaps this is not the case in Greece...") was inappropriate. But I'll avoid any kind of response on this issue, showing the respect that any person's homeland deserves.
For the last time, as Elonka did, I ask from you and anybody else involved in this discussion to focus on the proposal I made, and not on personal issues. If any user has personal problems with another user, then they can resolve these problems through their talk pages.
By the way, IMO means "In My Opinion", which I never intended to hide from you, but your edits contained serious accusations against me, and my priority was to answer to them. This was probably my omission and I apologize to you for that, but if you had avoided the aforementioned accusations focusing on the issues put on the RfC, then it would have been obviously easier for me as well to focus on your "IMO" and "red-linking" questions (when you red-link something, then you regard it as deserving its own article, and you often show your intention to create this article [although you are not obliged to do it]).--Yannismarou (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yannis, I did not make any disparaging comments about Greece, which is a country I respect and have long wished to visit. I merely made a statement of fact about my own limited knowledge about Greece.

I appreciate your telling me what IMO means, and red-linking. Thank you. I was not aware the appearance of red titles had any special significance in Wikipedia, other than the suggestion in its unusual appearance that something needed repair. I think I said as much above, but I appreciate your information. Still, nobody has informed me as to the location or locations of the 30 or more references I provided for the "Further Reading" list.

Apparently I was in error suggesting Wikidea removed the uncivil comment as well as my reply. It seemed most likely it was Wikidea had done it, and there was no other indication. How was I to know? Still, I apologize to Wikidea for my statement, here and on that users talk page.

I still do not understand what you mean by a "proposal." As I indicated above where I wrote: "Yannis, to what "proposal" do you refer? A "proposal" is usually about something in the future that has not yet happened. In this case, the entire section is gone, trashed, deleted, per Wikidea's statement above. "On second thought, I've deleted the lot." In what convoluted sense is this a "proposal?" It is already done."

In my lexicon, a "proposal" ceases to be a proposal after it has been implemented. This one was implemented days ago. The material I contributed is gone, as far as I can see.

I was not going to tell you this, because I did not wish to deal with this matter on any basis but its merits, but under the circumstances it appears perhaps you need to know: I’m the author or coauthor of more than 110 scholarly peer-reviewed books, journal articles (including some in American law journals), book chapters, research monographs, encyclopedia articles, and conference papers, including two bilateral international agreements signed by representatives of national governments. One or more of my books is currently owned by university or government libraries on seven continents.

In retrospect it now seems I was naive to think perhaps Wikipedia would be a pleasant diversion from the vicissitudes of academic life in a large university. And I thought perhaps I could give a little help building an encyclopedia. To date, it appears I was mistaken on both counts.

Until now, your interactions with me have been most unpleasant. I would not have willingly initiated such unpleasantness, but I am not adept at "turning the other cheek" when it seems I have been attacked. I did not come to my education through the traditional routes. My doctoral mentor used to tell his colleagues my first Ph.D. was earned in the "University of the Streets." I have a long scar across the palm of my right hand from an occasion when someone tried to kill me with a knife in the Hell's Kitchen part of New York City. I had no choice but to grab it by the blade. That is only a small part of my life experience, but perhaps indicates my determination when surprised by an attack.

Can we perhaps see if we can reach some accommodation? I would like to know where my contribution went, principally so I may determine if the references were appropriately apportioned to other relevant areas. After that, I'm willing to abandon any hope of making any constructive contribution to the Law article. You may do whatever you please with it, unhindered by me. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)