|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned peer reviews: Himawari.babybreath.|
I am not convinced that Wild Law is different from Earth Jurisprudence
I haven't read Mr. Cullinan's book but I've read his article Justice for All as well as some of Fr. Berry's works and I don't think there is a distinction. I think Wild Law happens to be a phrase Cullinan has chosen to capture the essence of Earth Jurisprudence. If you read Earth Jurisprudence and this article you'd get the impression that Earth Jurisprudence is a broad philosophy and Wild Law is it's practical application. I just don't think that is true. The whole idea is the search for a new legal philosophy that can be practically applied. There are historical analogs which are referred to as Earth Jurisprudence but were real working systems. E.g. Donald Reid "Earth Jurisprudence: What Lessons Can Be Learned from Celtic Influences on Scottish Law?" Presentation on Tuesday 6th November 2001 to Technical Session on ‘Wilderness and Jurisprudence’ at the 7th World Wilderness Congress, Port Elizabeth, South Africa (published as a pdf on the web but I don't recall where).
I suggest that Wild Law and Earth Jurisprudence should be merged, but not in the present forms. Wild Law looks like a stub and Earth Jurisprudence appears to be under a major revision. This is an important area of cosmology and deserves serious attention but it is also an emerging area of jurisprudence - not at all conventional law. - Doug DDHME 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Citation does not support the proposition
"The term ‘wild law’ was first coined by Cormac Cullinan, to refer to human laws that are consistent with Earth jurisprudence."
This does not follow from the citation which is a one paragraph description of Cullinan's book "Wild Law". The citation doesn't say that Cullinan coined the phrase, only that it is the title of his book. It also does not say that the term refers to laws that are consistent with Earth Jurisprudence only that the book talks about what Earth Jurisprudence "might look like".
I consider this an improper citation. Kindly support the assertion.
Doug. DDHME 06:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I see only two references in this article,and it was not clear where the information in this article is actually come from. Especially, in Background section, there are no links or references for any sources, so I cannot know where the facts in the section come from. Also, one of the two reference links is not working well and I could not find the referenced source. Another link took me to a website, but I needed to register to read the source. I think that it is better to have more reliable and reachable links to improve this article.
I also concern about the sources which have reachable links. Many of the links took me to other wikipedia articles and some links did not work. I think this would not make this article reliable enough.
Over-representation of the viewpoints by writers.
I think that some words, such as "may be" or "perhaps", make sentences sound like they are the writers' point of view rather than facts. I believe that the Wikipedia articles should only have facts and show a non-biased, neutral point of view. If the article includes the writers' opinions or thoughts,it violates the Wikipedia's policy I believe. I suggest to change the wording if information in this article is fact, or to edit or delete sentences if some information contains writers' viewpoints. I am looking forward the improvement of this article.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wild 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928103900/http://www.earthjurisprudence.org/ to http://www.earthjurisprudence.org/
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.