Talk:Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Law is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 5, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 16, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
October 16, 2008 Featured article review Kept
December 3, 2011 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article


References and New law articles needed[edit]

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I think should be an article about legal encyclopedias, with a link from this page. I also suggest to have the same related to Legal Thesaurus. There is an article about law dictionary, but not about legal or law encyclopedia and legal thesaurus.--195.31.182.215 (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

New non-spam section deleted outright, no discussion[edit]

So I added the following to this article, which the editor Yannismarou came by and deleted only minutes later. There is no such content as this on wikipedia and it needs to be added. Just because the article is getting "too long" in this single editor's eyes is not reason enough to expunge new content that is WP:notable and is not spam.

I have added the following box around DMahalko's included markup, to reduce confusion.--Jerzyt 19:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
===Copyright of law===

In the United States, federal laws are considered to be in the public domain and are freely accessible by anyone. This is necessary because in order for a society to be able to abide by laws, they must also be able to know the law without restriction. Section 105 of the Copyright Act, "United States Government works", places the works of federal employees in the public domain.[1]

However, the section does not say that it applies to the works of States. Some states have attempted to exploit these unclear rules by claiming copyright over state statutes.

For example in 2008, the state of Oregon claimed copyright over the publishing of its statutory law by the online law research website Justia claiming that, although the statutes themselves are not copyrighted, the "arrangement and subject-matter compilation of Oregon statutory law, the prefatory and explanatory notes, the leadlines and numbering for each statutory section, the tables, index and annotations and other such incidents" were copyrighted.[2] After significant public exposure, the state backed down from its copyright claim.

===References===
  1. ^ Justia> Law> US Law> US Code> TITLE 17 — COPYRIGHTS> CHAPTER 1 — SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT> § 105. — Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works. http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title17/17usc105.html
  2. ^ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/04/oregon-publishing-our-laws-online-is-a-copyright-violation.ars

If this article is getting too long, then break the article up into sub-articles. "Too long" is never a good enough reason to delete WP:good faith edits.

DMahalko (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It might have been better for Yannismarou to have mentioned it here first, but he is still in the spirit of WP:BRD. Your proposed change is certainly not spam. I agree with his opinion that the article is too long already. Can you recommend something currently in the article that could be deleted to make room? Or, could there be enough interest to justify a separate article on Copyright of law? EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's about the US, put it on the US page first - or on the copyright page. The way this page is structured - sensibly - is to outline the core legal subjects, and then have a list with very short summaries for other subjects - further subjects. Thanks for the contribution, but Yannis was clearly right to remove it immediately, and these things need to go on other pages which are more focused. Wikidea 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I explained why I acted in the way I acted in my edit summary. I am sorry if you were offended, but this was not my intention. I never argued that it was a spam section, and I apologize if by acting in the way I acted I gave that impression. Let me just remind you that you also added the section without any prior discussion. A section about 1) a sub-fiels of law (if we devote such sections to any field and sub-field of law how huge is this article going to become?), 2) the US copyrights law explicitly. I think your useful info would fit better to the copyright page than here, unless you can summarize it in a sentence giving it a global scope and then adding it to the relevant thread ("intellectual property"). But then should we also expand and elaborate on each sub-field of intellectual property?! Thinking twice, I still think that the copyright article is the best fit for your contribution.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Beginning of article[edit]

I made some changes but was reverted. Is there any reason why the hatnote cannot go on a single line, like this? Also, putting a footnote after the very first word of the article makes it less readable; can we move that footnote to the end of the sentence?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't think this quote from Aristotle should be in the first paragraph: "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual." Aristotle was referring to the rule of law, which is a distinct concept from the rule by law. The difference is that under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government to control citizens, whereas rule of law can control and check not just private citizens but government officials as well. See Tamanaha, Brian. On the Rule of Law, page 3 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).Ferrylodge (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:LEAD - an introduction should summarise the article. It didn't seem that your change really added anything, did it? I think the idea of the rule of law, is that a community has common standards by which all must abide, so that nobody has uncontrolled discretion over others. Read the rule of law page for some ideas; people tend to break things into sevens. I think that I did want to refer to the rule "of" law itself, but I'm not sure (in any case) what's wrong with Aristotle. Wikidea 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing's wrong with Aristotle. It's just that the lead now gives the impression that a country with laws consequently has the "Rule of law" which is not so. If a government issues laws to its subjects, then the government itself is not at all controlled by law. Anyway, can we at least put the hatnote on one line, and move the first footnote to end of sentence?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you're right - everyone wants to pore over and over the intro. Originally when I wrote it, that sentence came after the outline of the various categories of law; and of course if you've just read about public law protecting human rights, etc, then it makes more sense. But of course, some bright spark had to rearrange it! But I think that it's not really as misleading as you say. To the last two questions, I'm afraid "no" and "no". Again WP:LEAD says the intro should give an article overview. Why break it into a separate heading? That's just adding a section for no reason. And the first footnote refers specifically to the etymology of the word "law". Again, because everyone wants to pore over and over the intro that footnote (believe it or not) was the product of extended debate!
On another note, if you're from the states, can you write something about US contract law? :) Wikidea 16:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe something is getting lost here in the translation from American English to British English. I'm asking if we can put the hatnote on one line, like this. The hatnote is the thing that refers readers to the disambiguation pages. I'm not going to argue about whether the first footnote should go at the end of the first sentence, though I think it should (putting it immediately after the first word of the article is just depressingly cluttered). Regarding contract law, alas it's not a specialty of mine.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
and serves as the foremost social mediator in relations between people. NPOV?? what about religion? 82.36.217.136 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I tried to change that to "a primary social mediator" but was reverted without explanation.[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

Image[edit]

I think that a photo of a statue is okay at the top of this article. However, why not a statue representing "Law", rather than a statue representing "Justice"? See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Because justice is the symbol outside most courts. If people want to read an encyclopedia article and know the most important things about law, then Justitia is the most important representation. It has more meaning, history and symbolism than this bloke with a sword. Wikidea 22:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Justitia is fine for an article on Justice or maybe even for an article about courts, but it does not belong at the top of this article, IMO. Courts are only one part of the legal system, and they are primarily charged with implementing the law and not with making it. We should not be implying that justice and law are somehow interchageable features, that justice is a necessary element of law, or that courts are more important than legislatures in the legal field. I'll look around. Maybe an image of the first written laws would be appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
A mosaic LAW by Frederick Dielman, 1847-1935.JPG

(undent)Here's a mosaic of "LAW" in the U.S. Library of Congress. Frederick Dielman (1847-1935) designed this mosaic representing Law, and it was subsequently manufactured in Venice, Italy.[2] A young woman on a marble throne holds a sword in one hand to chastise the guilty and a palm branch in the other hand to reward the meritorious. A glory surrounds her head, and on her breast is the aegis of Minerva, signifying she is clad in the armor of righteousness and wisdom. Other portions of this large mosaic are omitted from this image. This mosaic indicates not only the judicial but the legislative side of law; typical symbols of justice are less conspicuous or omitted, and the woman has a freer air of command.[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, your opinion isn't shared by most courts who have lady justice on top of them. I'm not sure why you are picking over the introduction and the picture. Everyone else seems to have thought it was fine. Wikidea 09:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikidea, I'm not picking over the introduction. I have no further changes that I'd like to make to the introduction. This talk page section is about the image, so let's focus on that, okay? I've never edited this article until this week, as far as I recall, so maybe I have a fresh perspective?
You say that my "opinion isn't shared by most courts who have lady justice on top of them." That's incorrect, because I am not disagreeing with any court. Lady Justice is a wonderful statue to put in front of a court, or on top of a court. It's also a wonderful statue to illustrate justice, because it is the symbol of the judiciary. However, this is not an article about justice or about the judiciary, it's about "Law". "Justice" is not the same as "Law", and courts comprise only one of the three branches of government. I already explained above that Lady Justice " is fine for an article on Justice or maybe even for an article about courts."
The image that I am requesting here explicitly illustrates "Law". That seems more appropriate for the present article.
Lady Justice (with her scales and blindfold) is a symbol of the judicial system, not of law generally. See Hamilton, Marci. God vs. the Gavel, page 296 (Cambridge University Press 2005): “The symbol of the judicial system, seen in courtrooms throughout the United States, is blindfolded Lady Justice.” Also see Fabri, Marco. The challenge of change for judicial systems, page 137 (IOS Press 2000): “the judicial system is intended to be apolitical, its symbol being that of a blindfolded Lady Justice holding balanced scales."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

All these arguments are rather inconclusive. I mean, to say that a picture of "justice" is not relevant for a law article is a pretty courageous viewpoint! And how can you separate the judicial system from law generally? For instance, one of the most revered judges in America, Oliver Wendell Holmes theorised that law is precisely what the judges decide. Also, I don't see the point of your rule of law sentence. We shouldn't carry out a debate on the rule of law within the first sentence of this introduction - I know exactly what you're trying to say: you want to distinguish the idea of "law and order" from the "rule of law". I see you're suggesting that rule of law should be merged with this page, and you're editing it to refer to this book you've referred to on Amazon. I'm afraid this just shows a lack of broad reading. The two are different. One is an institution, the other is a set of values to which institutions might aspire. The rule of law page is also substantially shorter than it was, and very important different conceptions have been removed, which is a pity. Wikidea 13:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied that "a picture of 'justice' is not relevant for a law article." We are talking about the lead image in this article. If you want to put a picture of "justice" lower in this article in a relevant section, then I have no objection. However, if you want to endorse and promote your POV that "law is precisely what the judges decide" then I can understand why you insist on having the symbol of the judiciary at the very top of this article.
Moving along, you have this bizarre sentence: "I see you're suggesting that rule of law should be merged with this page, and you're editing it to refer to this book you've referred to on Amazon." I am not suggesting a merger, and I have no idea what you're referring to about Amazon. None of my edits said anything about any book at Amazon. I removed the merger suggestion way back in March.[4]
You seem to be impervious to rational discussion. If this article comes up for Featured Article Review, I will oppose continued featured status.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not my view at all, that's Holmes' view. It was argued against by HLA Hart in The Concept of Law, and I probably agree more with that. Don't get upset just because you don't like the picture; I just don't see the point of your changes, when everyone else was fine with it. I'm not impervious to rational discussion, I disagree with you. I don't see a huge demand for your changes, and I don't agree with them. Your comment about the FAR makes you sound really small-minded and spiteful. Cheer up. Wikidea 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's not your view, then you shouldn't use it to justify your position. As for me being small-minded and spiteful, you ought to think about focussing on content here at this talk page, instead of bringing insults and putting words in my mouth. If I continue to believe that you are trying to conform this article to your personal POV, then of course I will object at FAR, and I'd be negligent not to. Regarding the image, no one but yourself has objected to using an image at the top that represents "Law" rather than using the image that is already used appropriately at articles like justice and judiciary.
But see the archives for the older discussion on that image: it was already settled and passed two FARs! I'm not saying you are spiteful, but it certainly would be spiteful to oppose because you're not getting your way. Wikidea 08:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Aristotle and the Rule of Law, your edit summary asserts that I am wrong and should read a book instead of reading Wikipedia.[5] Again, comments like those are not appreciated. In the first paragraph of this article, there's a quote from Aristotle, but there's no cite for it. All there is is a different quote in the footnote with a cite for that. We should not begin a featured article with an uncited quote. Additionally, laws can exist without the "rule of law", so we ought to give a slight indication what the heck Aristotle was talking about, and maybe even a wikilink to (gasp!) rule of law. If the Aristotle quote in the footnote is expanded, then the meaning becomes clear: "it is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws." Thus, Aristotle was emphasizing that not just the citizens but also those in power should be "servants of the laws," i.e. the rule of law requires that law be more pervasive than merely governing the citizens. Anyway, I'll give this one last try by editing the lead again. I would urge you to imagine that I have some clue what I'm talking about. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Aristotle wrote in Greek!! That's why you can have different translations but the meaning is the same, and it is cited. Do you read Ancient Greek? One of the editors of this page does! The thing is Ferrylodge, that we cannot explain everything to do with law and legal philosophy in an introduction. This is like a portal page, where people who want information beyond the overview can follow links to find out more. I'm sure you do know what you're talking about. But I think that your sentence was reductive, and that's why I'm urging you to read some more about it. There are tomes of books written about the concept of the rule of law. Law being "pervasive" is still consistent with arbitrary government, the "law and order" approach which I think you're trying to bring the contrast with. The concept of the rule of law usually makes rules prospective, open, clear, that judiciaries should be independent, that the system is stable, etc, etc. But see the Dehli Convention for the souped up conception. I'd suggest that the key authors you may want to look at are Lon Fuller and HLA Hart and then Joseph Raz and John Finnis - and that's just the legal philosophers. I'd post some other deleted stuff on Talk:Rule of law. The question can be put like this: "what minimum normative criteria does a state with the "rule of law" require?" We can't explain all this in the introduction. It has to be in summary style; that's why I think it's good that you're editing the rule of law page. You can bring out all these ideas there. Wikidea 08:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, there was a wikilink to the rule of law page!!! You must have reverted it without looking carefully. Wikidea 08:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so we're clear on translations, and that I went through this carefully when writing it initially,
The reason we included the link to the translation we did is because it's on Wikisource. That's also why we put in the caveat about the translation. Wikidea 09:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not rocket science. First, per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged...." Why do you insist on having a wikilink within the quotation in the very first paragraph of a featured article, when it is totally unnecessary?
Second, If you're going to quote Aristotle in the text of the first paragraph of this featured article, then include a footnote to that translation. I do not understand why you are taking the attitude here that anything I suggest or do must be reverted, but actually Wikipedia has not enacted such a policy (yet).
Third, you can certainly include in the footnote a different translation too, but that does not excuse you from including a supporting cite for the translation that you actually use in the text. BTW, I enlarged the different quotation in the footnote, but you have reverted that without explanation (as appears to be your wont). The full quote is: "it is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws." Why not allow the full quote in the footnote? Aristotle explains that public officials should be "servants of the law" and that is the whole point of what he was saying.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)  Done
1. I thought you wanted it. Take it away if you don't.
2. See above.
3. "preferable" sounds pretty synomous to "better". It's like that because it reads nicely. Please expand on your other ideas on the rule of law page. Wikidea 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Yes, I want it, but not within quote marks (unless Aristotle originally included a wikilink, which is doubtful).
2. Putting cites on the talk page is insufficient. A cite to the translation we use should be in the footnote at the bottom of the Wikipedia article. Here's what's in the lead now: "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual." And here's what's in the footnote now: "it is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens". You need to footnote the former translation, and you haven't come close to doing that.
3. So, you're continuing to disallow the expanded Aristotle quote in the footnote? The full quote is: "it is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws." This last quote actually explains what he meant, instead of using an ambiguous slogan like "rule of law".Ferrylodge (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

I have a question about Lady Justice, I also feel it shouldn't be used to depict Law, as Law and Justice are not the same. My question is about the symbols. The scales are said in the introduction to place the conflicting sides, but I don't believe that is the case. Are the facts of both sides supposed to go on the same side and justice on the other? Isn't this is what the scales are supposed to measure?Mgz001 (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgz001 (talkcontribs) 07:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose she measures facts or arguments against a law one by one, and then has to judge based on the findings, which one measured better. Within this analogy I also feel the image is a bit misleading, cause justice seems to be a function (as 'dependent') of law, rather than law itself. It is a different branch of power, isn't it? Malikov (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

infinite recursion[edit]

Currently, we have a circular definition: Rule refers to Law, but Law refers back to rule in the first line. (I've made it an actual link in the article to make this fact more clear).


How to fix? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC) (incidentally, our current definition of infinite recursion is unreadable to the layperson or even some experts :-/ ; but that's a topic for another day. best definition I can find is actually here: Recursion#Recursive_humor )

Magna Carta[edit]

Shouldn't the Magna Carta be mentioned under Legal history? 96.245.119.19 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Mgz001 (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No. It's dealt with in the common law and equity section. Wikidea 13:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no authority within existence that is above The Law.

"Do not presume anything.

The word 'option' does convey the idea of The Law in its most basic sense but does not clarify all of what The Law is. Free Will does describe how our species experiences The Law but does not convey all of what The Law is.

In clarifying what The Law is; The capitalised form of the word 'The' indicates the following noun is a specific thing. Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate. Together, the words 'The' and 'Law' (in that exact order,) is a proper noun indicating; the singular form of Law that all other forms of Law and all other Laws are founded upon, the singular foundation upon which Existence is founded, the singular foundation upon which Non Existence is founded, the singular foundation connecting Existence to Non Existence, the concept of options, and Free Will.

The form of Law binding the Self absolutely is One's Own Law. Whether one's Self can "see" The Law depends entirely upon the particular one.

I can describe The Law with words. The term 'perfect' does not mean what you think it means.

One can see, comprehend, and understand The Law for One's own Existence."

     Gōhō-tekina Otoko, The Lawful Man, The First Peace Officer at The First Peace Office 

As we experience The Law in our Being,

The Law is Free Will. The First Protector of The Law is Freely Given Consent. The First Violation of The Law is Theft of Consent.

Vance Gawron (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there enough philosophical value[edit]

Is there enough philosophical value in the sentence “The law is what the majority of the people understand it to be” to be added in the Philosophy_of_law section? Same question for “The law should be what the majority of the people want it to be”. I added those as: In 2010, Florin Horicianu, cautioned the United States government that “The law is what the majority of the people understand it to be”; his deep belief in a true democracy was expressed in “The law should be what the majority of the people want it to be”. Ohnoitsjamie deleted it as being “promotional material”. Fhbrain (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what about the law of taxation.

Rana Danish Adv. (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Selection of pictures does not reflect a worldwide view[edit]

The current selection of pictures as of July 27, 2009 shows primarily examples of British and North American law. An estimation of 50% of the pictures are from Anglo-Saxon countries or Western Europe, a number I would suggest to lower if appropriate pictures from other parts of the world exist. Wouldn't it be good to have pictures of a Sharia tribunal, of text the Chinese legal tradition or of significant lawyer from Latin America? Dentren | Talk 01:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How about you suggest here which pictures you'd like to have, and which pictures you'd like to change and then we'll know what you're thinking of. I doubt very much that a Sharia tribunal, or some medieval Chinese court is appropriate or representative of the modern world; though having a South American lawyer picture could be good (although not necessarily better in qualitative terms), and I'd be happy to see your suggestions. Wikidea 22:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Article has pro-legal bias[edit]

The entire article is an advertisement for the ideology of legal establishments. The article should be entirely re-written by non-lawyers. Laywers mostly wrote this article; their indoctrination is blatent. It needs to be re-written by people who don't have a stake in believing in their system. Lawyers believe their system reflects justice and democracy. They believe their system is fair. They are part of it. The rest of society believes, for the most part, that the lawyers' system is corrupt. Why is Wikipedia advancing the agenda of the system? It is like religious articles written by people who belong to the religion, or political articles written by people caught up in the politics being written about (these are also rampant problems on Wikipedia). How will people believe the law articles are written by a neutral POV when they are so blaringly biased by the lawyers who write them, and only serve to espouse their indoctrination? 216.232.242.7 (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't think that's true. There are plenty of things that are unfair But in order to criticise something, you need to understand it. It doesn't sound like you really understand what you want. What do you think is unfair? Wikidea 11:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I love contributing to the Legal articles, but I'm not a lawyer. As the Pope said, "...a society without law would be a society without rights. Law is the condition of love."[1] Maybe the Pope was indoctrinated by a German lawschool, but I believe otherwise. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 12:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)



  1. ^ Letter to Seminarians, Art. 5 (18 October 2010)

I think the user is suggesting that the article should contain a "criticism" section that details philosophical and practical objections, not merely to the content of laws, but to having laws in the first place.

I suggest the following starting points:

  • China (Confuscianism, for example, takes a negative view of what is termed "fa" (positive law))
  • Japan (People do not attempt to enforce legal rights through the courts even when they are in a position to do so because it is not the done thing)
  • Anarchism, Libertarianism (Obviously)

There is no reason, however, why such a "criticism" section cannot be written by people who happen to be lawyers. James500 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Common Law Centric[edit]

The intro talks about contract, tort, property and criminal law, divisions which only make sense to countries subject to Common Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 02:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that France and Germany don't have contracts and torts (excuse moi, contrat e delict oder Vertrag und unerlaubte Handlungen)? Are you saying that property doesn't exist, and nor does criminal law, except in "common law" countries? Wikidea 12:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
In Civil Law, crimes are "delicts", so technically, there is no criminal law, but delictical law. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
They are in common law too, but there's an additional element in both systems which locks you up - that's the crime part. There's no difference whatsoever. Wikidea 22:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, I didn't mean civil law does not have contract and tort law.. what I said was, the divisions are different, and in Civil Law, both Contract Law and Torts would fall under Law of obligations. How about something more generic like Commercial Law instead of Contract? Tort, Property,Equity and trusts are also Common law divisions, the rest are fine.—Preceding unsigned 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Puffery[edit]

the last couple of sentences of the introduction are a bit grandiose "To implement and enforce the law and provide services to the public, a government's bureaucracy, the military and police are vital. While all these organs of the state are creatures created and bound by law, an independent legal profession and a vibrant civil society inform and support their progress." i mean organs of the state, creatures created and bound by law, vibrant civil society, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not some essay celebrating the judicial system, lets leave it at verifiable facts not opinion pieces stuffed with puff. Daftruth (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the introduction alone makes me seriously question 'featured article' status. The first few sentences hardly establish the general identity of the topic, more dive into listing sub-categories. I also agree that the last few sentences of the section quoted above do sound grand. I'm going to throw a spanner in the works, well raise a few eyebrows of people reading this discussion page at least: I suggest this article uses the Simple English Law article (here).Kathybramley (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
"Puffery" and even, grandiosity, though, comes close to personal attack on the editor who created that text. I am just noting a concern to be helpful and trust you were being robust in good faith. Ah, turning into a sycophancy towards wikipedia policy here, sorry; yuk :). Kathybramley (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why I cited it. It looks like some State Bar put it there. Western human culture (e.g. Shakespeare, Socratic philosophers, etc.) has a strong tradition of regarding the legal profession negatively. The median between "puffery" and that anti-legal profession, deflationary/deconstructionist view would be to just drop it. I think most people would agree that less law is better, and not having or needing a legal profession would be ideal (whether or not possible). Recusing myself as I have a strongly held belief that the law should be automated, disintermediating the living logic of society and its members. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

Note that I'm thinking of taking this to WP:FAR, as I'm concerned about the validity of some of its content. Of particular problem is the referencing; Sections such as "constitutional and administrative law", "property law", "further disciplines", "religious law" and "executive" have unclear referencing for some paragraphs and absolutely no referencing for others; furthermore, there is a distinct bias towards common law jurisdictions, most particularly those of England and Wales and the United States. I'm willing to provide more specific examples if there's anyone actually willing to fix the problem. Ironholds (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is an entirely different one from the one that got FA status. I'm surprised that featured articles don't appear to be routinely re-assessed to see if they still qualify. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's actually pretty much the same. Here's the link, which is also above. Don't know why there were two pictures, and three paragraphs, but of course that's cosmetic. Wikidea 19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the logic is that regular reassessments, given the number of FAs we have, would simply suck up too much time. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I welcome the review if it's to make constructive suggestions, about what exactly is missing. But it's not just an anglo-american point of view - I wonder what it would look like from another point of view? Wikidea 19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Greek[edit]

Here's a question....this article says Athens had no "single word for 'law'", and instead there was a three-way distinction between divine law, human decree, and custom. This article also quotes Aristotle as saying "law should govern". Which of the three was he referring to?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead 'graph[edit]

   The first 'graph of the lead section

  1. Starts with
    Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions ...
  2. and completes that sentence with a totalitarian-sounding goal (or more charitably, a discouragingly vague one):
    ... to govern behavior, wherever possible.
  3. The second sentence elaborates the first one's thrust:
    It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people.
  4. The next six enumerate eight subdivisions of law, one or two per sentence.
  5. A final sentence evokes age and a Certified Great Man
    Writing in 350 BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle declared ...
  6. but it states its point without making any effort to persuade or demonstrate, amounting in this article (no matter how much reasoning may have accompanied it in Aristotle's original context) to a platitude:
    "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual."

That 'graph may have begun as one designed for a cogent purpose, but if so, it lost its focus and turned into something accreted, like a bed of puddingstone, without any guiding plan.
   If i were willing to undertake an overhaul, i'd start by removing the discussion of subdivisions, which would be better handled, probably in a bullet-point list section with no additional goal or content except a sentence like

The following specialized areas are generally recognized as areas of study and of professional practice

(or something that someone better informed than i has given more than the 5 minutes thot that i gave that).
Working on rewriting the lead section is not necessarily the best place to start on making the article more valuable, but a lead this chaotic is bound to be a bad introduction to readers, who may reach the body of the article with low expectations.
--Jerzyt 05:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

But the goal of "law" IS totalitarian. Its aim is to destroy those who will not submit to the whims and wealth of the legal industry. 205.250.243.241 (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disgusting photos[edit]

Why is this article laden with photos of civil rights and the United Nations? It reeks of the self-congratulating attitude of lawyers. Why not include a few photos of people made homeless due to lawsuits, or people imprisoned because they are ill? Why not show the other side of law for a change? Because the article is written by and controlled by lawyers, who perceive themselves to be the harbingers of social justice, rather than the wealthy rationalizers that they are.205.250.243.241 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the pictures are POV, why don't you just add some new ones? James500 (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The article text may be "in world", as they say about fan fiction, but the pictures are mostly illustrative, interesting, augment the text, and do not need change. However the pictures of demonstrators are redolent of popular news media. A bunch of people marching around doesn't suggest a viewpoint, one way or the other. People protest about practically everything, inside the law or outside it. What might be remotely interesting is a single photo showing two groups facing off. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent IP edits and reversions[edit]

I've just reverted 8 edits from an IP editor. While in good faith, they are unexplained and make substantive changes with are not too helpful. For example, instead of "legal profession" (a broad term applicable to all countries), IP used "lawyers" (a narrower term, which ignores the usage of barristers & solicitors). I invite IP to discuss the proposed changes here. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

S.Rich, you need to look at your own biases as someone with an interest in the subject matter. "Wronged" litigant has a bias that suggests the winner of a legal case necessarily has been wronged in some way, which is a subjective matter. "Losing" litigant is more objective because it doesn't make a judgement as to whether the winner is right or wrong. Legal decisions are neither "right" decisions, nor do they necessarily relate to justice. There seems to be a pro-legal profession bias throughout the article, which is so saturated with biased terminology that it sounds like lawyers wrote it. Another example is "compensation," which assumes a party is being compensated - the view of the legal profession. But to the rest of us, we may not see it as compensation. "Money" is more neutral. It doesn't sound like you're doing a very good job of following Wikipedia guidelines. 206.116.243.76 (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think IP editor is referring to these recent edits -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law&diff=501685525&oldid=501610683 -- not the ones in May. In any event, IP has prompted me to look again. I am doing some edits to improve (hopefully) the article.--S. Rich (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for hearing this. I will admit, though, that to make almost any Wikipedia article so free of language biases would be tedious. They're everywhere; they're how different people think. 206.116.243.76 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Not too long ago Wikipedia passed the 4,000,000 mark in articles, created by over 500,000,000 individual edits. There is a lot of room for improvement, so interested editors (IP and registered) have a lot of articles to choose from. Have at it!--S. Rich (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed paragraphs from article lead.[edit]

Law is the set of enforced rules under which a society is governed. Law is one of the most basic social institutions-and one of the most necessary. No society could exist if all people did just as they pleased without regard for the rights of others. Nor could a society exist if its members did not recognize that they also have certain obligations toward one another. The law thus establishes the rules that define a person's rights and obligations. The law also sets penalties for people who violate these rules, and it states how government shall enforce the rules and penalties. However, the laws enforced by government can be changed. In fact, laws frequently are changed to reflect changes in a society's needs and attitudes.

In most societies, various government bodies, especially police agencies and courts, see that the laws are obeyed. Because a person can be penalized for disobeying the law, most people agree that laws should be just. Justice is a moral standard that applies to all human conduct. The laws enforced by government have usually had a strong moral element, and so justice has generally been one of law's guiding principles. But governments can, and sometimes do, enforce laws that people believe to be unjust. If this belief becomes widespread, people may lose respect for the law and may even disobey it. But in democratic societies, the law itself provides ways to amend or abolish unjust laws.

These two paragraphs are not fit for being on lead of the article(See edit summary). Therefore I have edited them out. If anybody wants to insert them back, please do alter it appropriately before doing so [IMO they should not be inserted to the lead any case] 117.194.84.30 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

“Laws are made by governments”[edit]

What about private law? Anarcho-capitalists are big on that. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the statement in the article is probably wrong. It would exclude customary law (e.g. the legal recognition of local customs and conventional customs in England) and possibly autonomic legislation. The statement that law is made by the legislature is potentially misleading as in England it is said that judges can make new law if confronted with a question that has never been considered by the courts or Parliament. James500 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also the word "government" refers to the executive (i.e. the ministers of the crown) and not to the legislature (i.e. Parliament). James500 (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC) (In British English at least, according to our article). James500 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

I have changed this article by creating this new section because it seems to me that the question of the definition of law ought to be at the top of the article, and not confined to another article or hidden in a footnote at the end and a (vaguely labelled) discussion of "philosophy" halfway down. It seems to me that the first thing to do is to decide what the article is about before going straight into this list of "subjects". James500 (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC) It may be that the section "philosophy of law" should be moved up to the top of the article as well. James500 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Law is the finite and specific foundational control structure ordering the actions and interactions of all elements subordinate.

The singular foundation of all Law is The Law.

Our species does not create Law. Our species creates fictional insurance policies that are misleadingly called Law. Vance Gawron (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Who do laws apply to?[edit]

Shouldn't an article on law state who laws apply to? Cats? dogs? humans? aliens? robots? Without this clarification often absent in the laws themselves, surely some clarity would be welcome? Take an example law that refers to 'anyone', does it cover a robot? Same for noone? What if a robot was a sentient being? The way I see it, all is vague depending on how you read it given they don't state everything in black and white terms. If I disallow a service to humans only but humans as a whole, have I breached human rights? Did they have a right in the first place? What if I start the et-pirate bay for ET access only? Surely if someone lied and claimed to be an ET and they weren't and were incorrectly supplied with content, plausible deniability would be an acceptable argument? What if a cat accessed the content? I'm not really trying to take the 'mouse' out of the topic, but there is some legitimacy with my question if you want to be absolutely clear who the laws are written for (obeying) and the rule of the law applying to (when it refers to subjects).

ZhuLien 116.240.194.132 (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Who or what may be the subject of legal rights or duties (that is, who or what may be a person in law) depends on the system of law in question. English law treats corporations as juristic persons. Other systems of law may treat supernatural beings, animals, inanimate objects, a vacant inheritance (hereditas jacens) or the fund of a charitable foundation (stiftung) as juristic persons. A human being, such as an outlaw or slave, may, in some systems, not be deemed a person in law. (O Hood Phillips, A First Book of English Law, 4th ed, ch 19). James500 (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

The current first sentence is problematically written, starting off by qualifying itself before even defining the topic. While this does provide a certain degree of comic relief regarding the words of lawyers, it is an impediment to general audience comprehension. Many articles on WP cover topics with nuanced and even disputed definitions, such as particle, species, or many articles on particular species. But for the sake of accessibility, we have made a practice of first defining the topic, per MOS:BEGIN. It's reasonable to follow up this definition with qualifications and disputes as necessary. I tried to edit this article to that effect, but my effort was reverted. In response to the edit comment attached that reversion, I would point out that I essentially only moved the existing definition forward in the sentence and the qualification back (although apparently my use of "generally" in anticipatory accommodation to dispute was taken as WP:OR, although the structure of the previously existing sentence already implied the same as a primary definition). I welcome constructive suggestions. ENeville (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreement on this point. MOS is fairly clear that the Lede should be a straightforward summary of material covered in the main body of the article. FelixRosch (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Morality of law[edit]

There is very little about the moral basis of most law having its genesis in religion or religious tenants. Without that, aren't laws somewhat arbitrary? If, as the narrative states, Government makes the law as it sees necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur. I think this is due to the positivistic bias inherent in most contemporary Anglo-American legal discourse. This should be remedied, as legal positivism is only one of many philosophies of law, so in accordance with WP:NPOV it seems that the moral basis of many legal systems should be discussed. Not simply in the "religious law" section, but in others as well. Only in the modern age has law been so cut off from religious moral grounding. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 01:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

recent edit by aduclehomo[edit]

hi,

i feel his edit is wrong. he tried to insert a WL to social science on jurisprudence page as well. very suspicious and i disagree that any real study of the law uses present-day "social science" (see psychology study reproducibility errors as just one form of why this would be disastrous. this also explains why things like fMRI are not accepted as lie detectors. the barriers of entry for legitimate evidence that can be analysed by means of social science, and consequently admitted into law as fact, is extremely high; so much so, i feel the edit is inappropriate.

i would do it myself but i can't since it's protected. someone else, pls? ty 96.52.168.137 (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring/removal of content[edit]

@78.149.203.201: Do you have any consensus for what you're doing? Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible undue weight?[edit]

There's a section for Islamic law, but no section for any other types of religious law.

Possible undue weight?

Benjamin (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sharia Law[edit]

As a Muslim its our obligation to enforce Sharia Laws. In Pakistan it is our duty to implement " Nizam- e-Khilafat". Rana Danish Adv. (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In general this does not become separate from Pakistan's national law, which i gather is based on Sharia Law. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC) It appears that the article on Sharia needs improvement from an expert. However i don't think this article needs excessive detail on any individual pert, or it will become too large. i Would recommend making improvements to the main sharia article and maybe the Pakistan relevant law pages to add this information. A Guy into Books (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)