1. (a) English is not my native language so someone else might do a better job in evaluating this, but sentences like: "In a global economy, law is globalising too." or "Property law governs valuable things that people call 'theirs'." don't strike me as well-written and engaging.
because? As a native English speaker I would like to hearby confirm that these sentences are both well written and are legally accurate, therefore engaging. Wikidea 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
(b) This article lacks any significant coverage of Islamic law. Islamic law is one of the three most common legal systems of the world, and this article is written from Western perspective of common and civil law. Also, something on maritime law would be nice.
Islamic law is not a legal system. It's a form of religious law, based on holy texts. It is not very significant in either population terms or in theoretical terms. It is in fact well discussed, and there are links to subpages. As for maritime law, that is given its line with all the other specialisms under further subjects. Wikidea 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh I was wrong about maritime law, and in fact there are now two very good pages on admiralty law and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I'm putting them in. You see, this is what people do with Wikipedia, they make an effort. People, who I wish would go away, just argue and expect others to do the work. Wikidea 20:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
According to a properly sourced claim in its article Islamic law is among the three most common legal systems of the world and according to our own article on Legal systems it is a legal system. Faculty of Law at University of Ottawa divides world legal systems into four main categories - civil law, common law, customary law and Muslim law. According to their map Muslim law is predominant legal system in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Iran, Arabian Peninsula countries, Syria, Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Morocco and Mauritania, and significant influence on legal systems of countries from Indonesia to Algeria. Customary law has heavy influence in countries like China, Mongolia, Japan, Korea, Sri Lanka, and number of African countries. So Islamic and customary law are two major legal systems and they are more or less completely ignored in the "Law" article.
Also concerning comprehensiveness, one of the four main sections of article "Legal institutions" begins with "The main institutions of law in liberal democracies are...". That is fine but what about the main institutions of law in other political systems? -- VisionThing -- 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I definitely disagree with you. Islamic law has its place in the "history of law" and "religious laws" sections, but any further expansion on that would be IMO overdue. Are we then also going to analyze all the Christian canonical laws as well?! Why should we choose to follow your pro-Islamic POV, and ignore these religious laws as well! Following your rationale, as a Greek and Christian Orthodox I demand from Wikidea to add a long and super-analytical section about the Orthodox canonical law, which is practiced by a church of more than 300,000,000 members, and has a huge history as a continuation of Byzantine law, whose influence in modern western systems is ecumenically recognized!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
He just doesn't know what he's talking about, and I think the University of Ottawa would say the same. Religious law encompasses islamic law, and once again it's not significant either in population terms or theoretically. Wikidea 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any specific POV on this issue; I'm simply stating what the sources say. My rationale is that according to sources Islamic law is one of the main legal systems in the modern world. If you have sources that claim the same for Orthodox canonical law, then yes, we should also deal with it. However, I doubt that you will find sources for such claim. -- VisionThing -- 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Islamic law is presented as one of the main systems, but within the framework of religious law. And this is the correct thing to do in terms of structure.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Relevant paragraph rewritten and expanded. I really don't know what more could be added there!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Islamic law is more than just religious law. Personally don't care which umbrella you place it under, but islamic law does extend into other areas of law, more commonly understood such as finance. These are specialisations in which Malaysia is a world-leader, and even global law firms/vocational teaching institutions now cover their methods of raising money. We need to give it a little more justice. :) Sephui (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
(c) Although this article has 130 inline citations many of those are primary sources. Per Wikipedia's policy on primary sources, articles should relay on secondary sources, specially when it comes to interpretive and synthetic claims. Unfortunately nature of this article requires synthetic and generalizing claims and conclusion that cannot be drawn from individual cases without OR. Few examples of bad sourcing: Constitutional and administrative law section contains following claim: "A case named Entick v. Carrington illustrates a constitutional principle deriving from the common law." Who says that that case illustrates constitutional principle? In that section we have another similar claim: "The fundamental constitutional principle, inspired by John Locke,…" and given source is Locke's The Second Treatise. Who says that this constitutional principle was inspired by Locke and not by someone else? Whole "Constitutional and administrative law" has only one secondary source. Similar problems are present in other sections. Also, there are some POV claims like: "Civil society is necessarily a source of law, by being the basis from which people form opinions and lobby for what they believe law should be." (this one is also unsourced).
Pick up any first year public law text and it will talk about the case. The moral of the story in Entick is that without a warrant, the sheriff (a government body) had no authority to act, therefore could not act. This is also an especially interesting case because it preceded the US declaration of independence. So it is law in all common law nations. Examples of cases throughout the article try to be relevant to as many readers as possible. You can find the Locke source in the footnote, and if you read Lord Camden's words they are quoting Locke verbatim. As for civil society, Robertson QC's quote is telling you the same.
But that's just it, isn't it Vision Thing. You don't care about reading things, or getting it right, that you're happy to keep wasting everyone's time, and you're just pursuing a sour grapes agenda. Wikidea 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." -- VisionThing -- 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It is absurd to speak about referencing problems in such a well-researched (mainly thanks to Wikidea), and rich with sources article. Just look at the sources section (all of which are used in the article; this is no fake list!); legally speaking, I rest my case!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't understand the point of this distinction between primary and secondary sources. If you can't quote from a case, or say what is in a statute, then everything that I have written on this website should be gotten rid of. Wikidea 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Another example of poor sourcing is Judiciary section. This section has five inline sources but let us look what is sourced. Four sources are links to webpages of appeals courts, and one source is US Supreme Court verdict. Claims that are sourced are establishing the names of appeals courts in the US, UK, Germany, France, and EU. Fifth source is supporting claim that the United States Supreme Court did reach one verdict. At the same time some very specific claims are not sourced - "In most countries judges may only interpret the constitution and all other laws." "...the UK, Finland and New Zealand still assert the ideal of parliamentary sovereignty, whereby the unelected judiciary may not overturn law passed by a democratic legislature." -- VisionThing -- 21:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sources are now provided.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This section also vividly shows lack of comprehensiveness – it only talks about judiciary in Western countries. What about judiciary in Arab countries, India, China, Japan...? -- VisionThing -- 21:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please, try to understand that we cannot tell everything in this article! Per WP:SS the section is comprehensive enough.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Judiciary in communist countries (with China being the most prominent one) is now treated. About India I don't see what should be added, since it is a part of the common law system without any spectacular particularities.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
References to Arab countries' judiciary also added.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(d) Beside Western POV problem caused by the lack of comprehensiveness there are some POV problems with a lead.
This is why VT brings this here. He's effectively bringing his neutrality issues to an FAR. Wikidea 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
2. (a) Lead section opens up some questions that are not discussed later in the article. It says: "The study of law raises important questions about equality, fairness, liberty and justice, which are not always simple." If those questions are important why they are not discussed in the article? What is relation of law towards equality and liberty? What does the "rule of law" mean (it is mentioned in the lead and only in one place in body of the article)? Also, lead contains (in my view) a POV quote by Anatole France. For one, Anatole France is not a well-known legal scholar, he is not even a legal scholar, so undue weight is given to him. He or his views are not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and, as far as I can see, for a good reason. Also, he presents a specific point of view that goes unanswered. -- VisionThing -- 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This is his original gripe (among many others on many pages). Anatole France won the Nobel Prize for literature. His aphorism is widely known, and quoted in law classes the world over. It's not France's view that is the problem. It's just Vision Thing here, who is bringing a neutrality dispute from this, the history of economic thought and the competition law page. He just wants to push some conservative authors' quotes, and so far as I can see, is a very uninteresting and worthless contributor to Wikipedia. Wikidea 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If his aphorism is so important that it must be quoted in the lead then it also should be important enough to be discussed in the main body of article. However, that is not the case. -- VisionThing -- 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR). Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment I was an "Object and refer to peer review" when this article passed FAC; I don't think it has ever warranted featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Vision Thing is nominating this because he's a bit sour. Wikidea 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: This is the first time I have commented on a FAR, so . . . :
The article seems to be primarily about "western law" or at least has a "western law" explanative view reference point.
There does not seem to be anything about non codified or oral tradition or "tradtional law", for example the law in "indigenous societies"
The "definition" of law seems to be only from a codified perspective. Should it say something about "socioanthropomorphic constructive" law, for example:
the law is in reality the set of social behaviours enforced within a society, whether or not they have been legitimately codified, are conscionable, etc. . . . even if the law was draconian, arbitrary, illegitmate, unconscionable, . . .
The real lead needs to be longer. It is one very short sentence. The rest of the lead perhaps should be very slightly expanded in to an introduction section - law is such a broad area, and the current lead leaves one a little befuddled. It does not lead one into the following sections as well as it might.
What is there seems to be good, but it needs more.
While there are many references, there seem to be a few unreferenced key assertions.
Speedy close. This is another clear case of content dispute, following Reagan and Roman-Persian Wars. The nominator is in a content dispute with Wikidea, and he thought that the best way to continue this personal feud was to bring this article here. I really can't take seriously arguments like not covering maritime law (?!!!!) or even Islamic law; such an article cannot cover every religious law in detail. Also saying that the article does not include adequate secondary sources is more than mere nonsense (and it reminds me of the same nonsense [but in an even worse version now] when Pericles was nominated here), and a poor excuse for Vision Thing's only and real problem, his 1d argument (which here is just one line, although this is what caused this nomination, and I'm sorry about the nominator's lack of straightforwardness). Therefore, I am per the speedy closing of this nomination and the continuation of the content dispute issue in the article's talk page. Finally, I would like to point out that this tactic to nominate an article here as a result of a content dispute (and as a "means of pressure" towards the article's main editors to succumb to the nominator's demands?) is getting really really annoying, and we maybe should discuss how to deal with it.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Reacting with personal attacks to a good faith attempt to improve article won't get us anywhere good. -- VisionThing -- 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you regard my above comments as a personal attack, then I am sorry but you have no idea about what a personal attack is, and you definitely have to distinguish in your mind the terms "personal attack" and "criticism". Trying to defeature the article, because other editors do not agree with some of your edits is no "good faith attempt to improve the article"; it is exactly the opposite. And I do insist on everything I wrote above. Your arguments are more than weak (this the most "gentle" term I can find in order to characterize them without making you believe that I personally attack you!), and this is definitely the wrong place to pursue your content dispute goals.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments. Although I see a few omisions of citations, this could have been handled on the talk page and would not require a review. Now, for the things that should be cited: 1) "The United Nations, founded under the UN Charter, is one of the most important international organisations. It was established after the League of Nations failed to prevent the Second World War." and the lines following. 2) "This increases the number of disputes outside a unified legal framework. Increasing numbers of businesses opt for commercial arbitration under the New York Convention 1958." 3) "The leading judge, Lord Camden, stated that," 4) "Lord Coleridge, expressing immense disapproval, ruled, "to preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it."" and what follows. 5) "The boy sued the goldsmith for his apprentice's attempt to cheat him. Lord Chief Justice Pratt ruled that even though the boy could not be said to own the jewel," and what follows. 6) Law#Further disciplines section should have some links, or one reference at the top to show where this list can be found, etc. 7) Law#Legal systems would need a source at the end, all though it is general, it would be nice to link a general source or a couple provided later. After that, there are only a few scattered spots. Less than 20 total citations needed, which is easily fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just done a couple of those: Armory v. Delamirie doesn't appear to be online; it can really be found in the library using the case citation. Would you like to paste the rest on the talk page for me, so we don't clutter up this page? Wikidea 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep open. How did this ever pass through FAC to begin with? An article on a topic as complex and important as the law should not garner only four support votes (one of which was cast by the main author). Anyways, the article doesn't exemplify our very best work. I agree entirely with Vision Thing's comments about the sourcing. In many instances, instead of citing reliable secondary sources with professional editorial oversight, the article directly cites cases and philosophical texts hand-picked by a Wikipedian. If the information is significant, it should be easy to find and cite a reliable secondary source to support it. Not to mention that entire paragraphs don't have a single citation. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
With respect, if you were lawyers, you would not think that there was anything wrong with a direct citation of what judges have said in cases. If you were able to find the bit of WP:PRIMARY that says cases are either primary sources or secondary sources, then you might have a point. But even if it did say that quoting from cases was bad, then it would be wrong, and out of kilter with what every academic legal author does every day. "The law" in the abstract sense is the primary source, and a judge through a case telling you what the law is would seem to me to be the secondary source - you would need quite a long jurisprudential discussion to resolve that though: I recommend getting a copy of HLA Hart's The Concept of Law if you'd like to find out more.
Yes, you're absolutely right that I hand picked the cases. The point is to allow readers a glimpse into understanding what each subject is about. There will always be discretion involved in trying to boil down an entire legal field, whether it is contract law, property law or whatever, into a paragraph. It was not me that passed the article for FA status by the way. In fact, I think this article is brilliant, and quite frankly, nobody else on Wikipedia would have - or did - write anything approaching the quality, clarity, succinctity of this. And moreover, as I think I pointed out in the FAC process, there is no other main academic subject page which is featured, or ever was close to what you have in the law page. The reason of course is that many editors come to Wikipedia being specialists in things outside what you'd find in a traditional encyclopedia, and the best pages are usually things that it is comparatively easy (going by the weight of the FA list) to be an expert in: computer games, celebrities, cities, countries... The science, literature and history pages are a few exceptions. Law is one of those things that people think they might be experts in, or have a legitimate opinion on, to say what is relevant or not, what good academic practice is or not. If you are one of those people, you are wrong, and you need a law degree (not a paragraph or two from me) to teach you why.
A good way to confirm what I say it to go and buy a copy of Professor Raymond Wacks A very short introduction to Law. You will find, as I did when it came out in 2007, that it covers very similar ground - uncannily similar ground - as what I did when I wrote for free on Wikipedia. I would add one cavaet to his book though: he has about 15000 words. This article is about 8000. The page is always open to growth and development. As you can see above, I developed it a bit by adding maritime and the law of the sea into the further subject lists. But it is necessarily hugely condensed, and necessarily serves as a route map to the pages where things can be done in more detail.
So I look forward to hearing more suggestions on the talk page. But I have no time for impudent ideologues who want to push some narrow agenda for the sake (as began this FAR) of a pointless sentence in the introduction. Wikidea 13:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that if there were people who really knew what they were talking about making all these criticisms about how the page isn't worthy, then I would be the first to listen. On the talk page. People who are really interested in improvement do things there, and it's always stone cold obvious when someone knows what they're talking about, and because they know what they're talking about it's always possible to have a conversation, reason, and improve. Wikidea 13:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima made some useful remarks in the article's talk page, regarding some parts needing citations. I think his conclusion the article needs about 20 more citations constitutes an exaggeration (after all I do not like such arithmetics), but I'll do my best to source the parts in question, and I hope Wikidea as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
More citations provided by both me and Wikidea. I keep checking the article in terms of wikilinking (there are some cases of over-linking) and MoS.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"The article directly cites cases and philosophical texts hand-picked by a Wikipedian." Personally, I am proud because this article "hand-picks" cases and philosophical text, and I regard that as a pro and not a flaw. Nevertheless, I keep enhancing the sourcing (which is already enormous), and I'll keep adding secondary sources, wherever I feel necessary (such as in Civil Society about Locke). Nevertheless, I do agree with Wikipedia that cases are fine sources. The work fine in the best law books; why not here?! For instance, two case are cited in relation with the supremacy of the European law that the European Court has declared. For me this is fine, and I see no reason to add an author, who will just repeat what the available in internet cases already say!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep open. The issue with citing cases directly is not one of WP:V, but of the potential for WP:SYN. There's no guarantee that the cases are representative. We should rely upon secondary sources for selecting cases. Cool HandLuke 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In the case of the European Court, the guarantee is the continuity and the consistency of the court's case law. I have no sourcing problem to add a secondary source, but I really regard it as redundant.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Notes, there are WP:MOS#Images and WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues with image placement throughout, and there are massive and unsightly navigational boxes placed right smack in the middle of the article (see WP:LAYOUT). I continue to be uneasy about this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you objected about the useful - not unsightly - boxes before, and I told you, before, why you were wrong. Again, Sandy, the layout page gives rules of thumb, not rules. Ottava Rima, however, said that navigation boxes may affect printing. That would seem to be a reasonable objection, but I don't know how much it does affect printing. "I'm uneasy" isn't, I'm afraid, either a useful or meaningful comment. But please do write on the Talk:Law page what the reasons for your ongoing insecurity are. Wikidea 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason for the guideline, and the reason navigational boxes go at the bottom of the article, is for printing, mirroring and accessibility. It certainly can't be argued that navigational boxes in place of text are brilliant, professional or compelling prose. The article is too long (but because of the structural problems, I can't even make the page size script work on it), too listy, and legal issues are listed below in the external review I requested. I have never believed this article is a compelling summary of the topic or presented in the most professional format to our readers, and that's without getting into the content issues raised below. I hope someone can calculate the prose size so we can figure out what we're dealing with, but with chunks of boxes in the middle of the text, it's hard to determine how to calculate size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I fixed most MoS-related images problems. I have just one problem with the English barrister's image: it is left-aligned under a === === section. If I right-align it, then the guy won't look at the text, but the view outside the PC screen! If I keep it left-aligned, and move it a bit below, it will break the next section and creat a "sandwitch" effect! If I shrink it, then I may harm its utility within the article. I don't know what to do with it!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked an attorney friend to review this article, because I've never been comfortable with it. I can't answer on the following points; I'm merely passing along the message.
Dear Featured Article assistant director:
I have sent to you some comments on the Featured Article Review for Law. I would appreciate it if you would post them to the appropriate page. I have not otherwise participated in this discussion nor have I edited this article or any discussion pages on it.
The article attempts too much. Obviously a lot of work went into it, but it needs both some pruning and a good copyedit. (The second sentence is an example of a sentence that is so trite that it essentially says nothing.) More comments:
The case discussions should be taken out. The article is too long now; eliminating discussion of specific cases would shorten it. While stating what a case says is not OR; stating what a case means is. As the general propositions for which the cases stand are already in the text preceding those case discussions, the discussions are unneeded.
I'm just replying to these other comments now, which I'm sure are well intentioned, but pretty much all unfounded. The case discussions are there because they give some idea of what the subject is about. All are fundamental cases to each subject. Stating what a case means is not original research. On such basic cases everyone agrees. Wikidea 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The statement in the introduction that "Some countries persist in basing their law on religious texts" has a cast which could be construed as pejoriative. The separation between church and state, a comparatively recent construct, is not universally accepted; some societies draw no distinction between the civil realm and the moral or religious realm. (As an aside, Sharia, so frowned on in the west, in its origins was a means to insure all were equal before the law.) If this article is to be universal in its coverage it should be nonjudgmental in its composition. No aspersions are cast here on the authors; a sincere effort is made to include non-western systems, but there is still a western flavor to the article.
I personally don't care whether some lunatic fundamentalists would disagree that the state and church should be separate, and that various bibles written a millenium or two ago should form the basis of our law. They are stupid, and wrong, and uneducated. I don't think having a neutral point of view needs to take account of these viewpoints, and I'd suggest that you'd never find an encyclopedia that wasn't from Iran, Soviet Russia or perhaps certain parts of Mid-West America that would. Wikidea 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"However religion never provides a thorough and detailed legal system." Can this assertion be proven?
Are you challenging it? Can you show me an example of where it does? Of course you can't. There are only so many religions, and none of them, not one, never ever, ever, has provided a complete legal system. Wikidea 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Equity and Trusts seems too Anglocentric. Equity can be (and is) handled in the Common law and equity section below?
See my comment below. Wikidea 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The statement that Roman Law was lost during the Dark Ages goes too far, and is uncited.
I think this has been changed. The comment is much appreciated. But I think this a good example of how minor and insignificant the changes that could be suggested are. I should add, remember, the Renaissance gets its name from the fact that a lot of things were "rediscovered". One of them was Roman law. Wikidea 21:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy of law may give undue emphasis to recent ideas.
Analytical jurisprudence is recent, which is why it's talked about. It began with Bentham. It is the only thing distinctive about philosophy of law. The rest (normative jurisprudence or natural law) is simply a part of political philosophy. Wikidea 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The authors may wish to mention influential individuals such as Coke and Maine in the development and synthesis of common law.
We can't include everything! Please do add them to the history of law page. Wikidea 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The military and police section seems outside a reasonable scope for the article.
Because? I think it's vital, because how do you enforce the law without the long arm of the law? If you don't enforce the law, to what extent can you say that there is any law, and not merely a state of nature, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short... :) Wikidea 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You got your mate who is an attorney to have a look, and that was the best that s/he came up with? This list of five-things-that-I-don't-really-like s not terribly helpful, and I don't think you are being either. But I'd look forward to suggestions on the talk page. For example, I'd love to know why equity and trusts is "anglo centric", especially since it's found in India, South Africa, America, etc, and pretty much the world over in company law! Have a read of the page on directors duties if you'd like to find out more. Wikidea 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Tallying for such a long-lasting FAC is not easy Sandy. Now about the above comments: In most of them it should be Wikidea who answers, because sections, such as "Common Law and Equity" are mainly written by him (just as most of the article). About issue 1, I want to mention that my opinion was from the beginning that there was no reason to analyze particular cases into detail, but Wikidea explained why this would be useful. Concerning OR, I'm afraid I'll disagree again, but, since there are various concerns from many sides, it would be nice Wikidea either to add a couple of secondary source or to trim the cases' analysis so as to get over with that. Issue 3: I'll check the phrase; if sources are not consistent with the assertion I'll remove it. Issues 4, 7, 8: Again Wikidea is the best person to respond. Issue 5: I'll check the text and the sources. Length: I think prose is not too lengthy, but I've a slightly different opinion from that on Sandy: I think comprehensiveness is above lenght, and, in any case, this article is not tiring to me as a reader. I do not get such a feeling, but this may be because I am personally involved in it.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Issue 5: Sources seem consistent with what the article asserts. Roman law may not have been completely "lost" but it was indeed in decadence. Rephrased accordingly.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), and LEAD (2a).Marskell (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Note, assuming all else will be addressed to everyone's satisfaction, I am not going to be satisfied with a mass of red-linked navigational templates in the middle of the page. It is not compelling prose, it amounts to plopping a massive amount of lists and links in the middle of prose, we don't do it on most articles, and we certainly shouldn't do it on featured articles. If those sections can't be summarized in prose or tables or some other standard article format, they don't belong in the article; per WP:LAYOUT (and for good reason), navigational templates go at the bottom of the article. In addition to the commentary above on comment, there is still an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue (left-aligned image below third-level headings) and there are spaced emdashes (and mixed with spaced endashes). The non-standard layout apparently breaks Dr pda's prose size script; it would be great if someone could figure out the article's prose size relative to WP:SIZE.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"there is still an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue (left-aligned image below third-level headings)" We speak about one picture I mentioned above, and for which I asked for proposals, because I do not feel comfortable removing it. I thus do not regard that as an issue important enough to defeature the article.
"there are spaced emdashes (and mixed with spaced endashes)". I'll check all the dashes.
"it would be great if someone could figure out the article's prose size relative to WP:SIZE." I don't share this insistence on size. As I have repeatedly said, I personally do not have a problem an article to be long, if it does not get tiring for the reader, and if length is for the sake of comprehensiveness. After all, I know other longer articles than this in terms of prose that have gone through both FAC and FAR(C). And keep in mind that this article makes effective use of WP:SS.
I'll wait for Wikidea's response, before commenting on the navigational templates.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Manually counting prose size (without images, image captions, notes, references, seealso, external links) I found it exactly 65 kbs (although I still don't know if there was any reason to lose my time for that).--Yannismarou (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Two inconsistent instances of spaced ndashes within the text were replaced with mdashes. I also added s in a series of cases.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I added Smith in law and economics per Ottava's insightful after all request (editing in Wikipedia is proved to be an educational process as well, since while researching I had the chance to learn some very interesting things about the jurist Smith I did not know). I think his place is better there as a forerunner of law and economics, than in jurisprudence.
I added Grotius in Jurisprudence, and I'll try to improve the references related to ancient Greek and Romans. I think the section is already quite good, and we must have in mind that as indicated above it is difficult to keep the adequate balance between size and comprehensiveness—we cannot tell all the history of jurisprudence in this article.
Something I was thinking about for some days: Although "Military and Police" was added by Wikidea and not me (and I also had doubts in the past about its utility), I am not sure I'll agree with Sandy's friend remark that this section has no place in the article. Military and police constitute the hard nucleus of the state, and were in the center of the social-legal theories of Weber and Schmitt. They are still in the center of modern theories (again influenced by Weber and Schmitt) treating the triptych state–rule of law–power (see the neocons' theories or Fukuyama's analysis about rule of law and failed states). How can we say then that this section does not belong to Law's article?! My point is that there may be various subjective approaches about what belongs or not to the article, but this should not disorientate out judgment about whether its content should be regarded as featured or not.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I replaced this image causing the "accessibility problems". I also rewrote and cited the whole "Legal Profession" section so as to reflect this universal point of view some critics of the article have asked for.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I think the page is very strong, as you would expect from Yannis, but could do with a ce from a steady and careful pair hands. It would not be something that I could undertake myself, as the language needs to be very precise, and frankly I would be out of my depth. I see some glibness in places: Contract law regulates everything from buying a bus ticket to trading swaptions on a derivatives market. - not very precise at all. Other than prose, I see an outstanding article here. Strongly leaning towards Keep, but would like to see the review kept open and work continue. Ceoilsláinte 15:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ceoil for your kind words. Let me tell you that though "out of your depth" your rewording in the lead was damn professional! I mainly agree about the prose, but this is mainly the result of Wikidea's rationale: he obviously wanted to write a article in simple English so that the "out of his depth" reader enjoys and understands it. He mainly achieved that IMO, but in some places (like the one mentioned by Ceoil) there was a counter-effect: the prose seems to falls a bit back from the adequate level of encyclopedic professionalism (in some parts of the article I repeat). Robth has copy-edited the article during FAC, but again he was not a jurist. So, yes, indeed, a jurist copyeditor's contribution would be very useful to further upgrade the article. But where can we find him?! It seems that Wikipedia does not attract the constant interest of jurists interested in upgrading the law-related articles. Even Sandy's friend who left some very insightful comments he did that "through proxy". Can you convince him Sandy to do some editing as well—I think it would be great both for the article and the project.
I am a jurist and I want to further upgrade the article's prose, but there are three problems: 1) the article's structure and the content of most of its sections is the result of Wikidea's work; I sometimes feel like an "intruder" when editing these sections, 2) I am not a native English speaker, and even if I do my best I'll never reach e.g. Ceoil's talent in copyediting, 3) I come from the civil law tradition, and my knowledge of most of the facts, assertions etc. in Common-law related sections is almost non-existent! These sections were again worked by Wikidea. And this is where again an expert like Sandy's friend is needed.
Attention: do not misunderstand me. Though I admit all these problems, I still think we have a featured quality article here. Guys, it is by far the best in the net! Britannica would kill for such an article! But this does not mean that we cannot further improve it. Yes, we can (oups, somebody else told that just before me!)! But I need the assistance Ceoil talked about before. For the time being, what Ceoil could do (if he is interested in and if he has time to dedicate, with my assistance guaranteed) is to have a look and perform a prose massage in the section I significantly (from 30 to 60%) rewrote during this FARC or the previous FAC, namely: "International law", "Religious law", "Philosophy of law", and "Legal Profession". I can also definitely (or I think so!) assist a copyeditor's work with terminology verifications and clarifications in "Constitutional and administrative law", "civil law", "history of law", "sociology of law", "judiciary", "legislature", "executive", "military and police", "bureaucracy" and "civil society".--Yannismarou (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been away for a while, and I think that Yannis is doing an excellent and dedicated job responding to a lot of very minor and rather arbitrary complaints. I personally don't understand why the images were moved around. They seem messy and inconsistent now. I also don't understand why Sandy is against this article so much. It puzzles me, because this is the only serious academic discipline article over an entire subject which is any good. Why try to take it down? In fact most others are disasters (Maths and Chemistry are two notable exceptions: but why are the social sciences so poor, I wonder?). Everyone has to remember, when I wrote this it was, and remains a MASSIVE simplification. I try to make very difficult, knitty concepts easy for people who don't understand law. That, with great respect, means most of you. The page will get longer (as it already has done) when people pore over it going "there's something at the back of my head which I'd like to see here, you should throw that in." In fact the only person who's has made significant contributions to this article and who knows something about law is... Yannis! He says it's fine. I say it's fine. 90,000 hits a month say it's fine. I happen to like having this as an FA article, because I'm a little bit proud of it. But to be honest, I'm happy either way, because I contribute to Wikipedia so that non-contributing readers might get something useful, not to get internal Wikiawards! Once again, if anyone has access, have a look at Raymond Wacks A Very Short Introduction to Law (2007) - in fact you can see the index and the contents on Amazon. Again, I find it remarkable how similar this page is to that little book, and I don't feel abashed about saying that I know what is significant and important and what is not, and it seemed to have uncanny similarity with the world's most popular short law book. Wikidea 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
HoldRemove, serious issues (including POV and OR) raised have not been addressed, and it doesn't appear they will be.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, a month into the review, we still have massive templates dominating the middle of the article; not an example of compelling prose, and breaches WP:LAYOUT, crit 2 of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish. You're just being a spoil-sport because it didn't pass the first time with your explicit endorsement. You didn't object before, and it passed. It's the same, or better, in many places as before, and it passed. I consistently answer questions and make changes on good suggestions on the talk page. You never raised an issue on the talk page. You haven't raised a single helpful point here either (and neither did your phantom attorney friend), because you don't know what you're talking about. Oh yes, and this review was started by a troll. You've got a habit of not responding to replies to your comments. I find that offensive and disingenuous. I don't expect you will here either, and by now, I no longer care what you think. Wikidea 13:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I would assume good faith, Sandy, if you weren't just throwing in comments and then doing nothing when I reply to them. At the very least, I think it's civil to try and engage with the explanations I give. I respond to everything, because I want to make this article better. I have contributed oodles to the law pages, and to me it looks like you're just content to sit back and criticise. To me, it looks lazy. I stop assuming good faith when experience teaches me otherwise. And then to quote Wikipolicy at me is just cheeky. I think that you should have a little self awareness too. Not once have I heard from you, "you know what, there's actually been a lot of good work here". Get over yourself. Wikidea 00:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
About AGF: I am sure that Sandy's only interest is the article's proper quality. About CIVIL: This is an opportunity to stress that IMO it is time to clarify what "civility" means in this project, because it seems that we have two categories of users: those who can swear their fellow editors (expressions like "fuck you" [and all the similar versions, such as "fuck off" etc.] are lately a common place) enjoying a strange asylum, and those who are persecuted even with the suspicion of incivility.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree; this project has done a piss-poor job of it in the past, but ArbCom seems to be signaling that those days have ended. In any event, we should comment on the content—the article criticisms—not the contributor. Cool HandLuke 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Remove – although some positive changes were made since beginning of this review, basic problems with OR and POV have not been addressed. -- VisionThing -- 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Troll. See above. Wikidea 21:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The article has no POV or OR problems. These are the lamest arguments one could use in order to defeature it. And I honestly did not expect anything better from Vision Thing, who remembered his FAR (result of a personal vendetta with Wikidea) after some weeks of absence and indifference (better late than never of course!), but I did expect a better objection from an editor of the caliber and high quality of Sandy. It is a pity! One could indeed talk about the prose, the analysis etc., but using POV or OR as the battering ram against this article is IMO scientifically and in terms of citing incomprehensible! By the way, I would like to point out that this is not a "shoot and go" procedure. I would thus expect some follow-up comments by Sandy's friend to Wikidea's responses.
In any case, I want to notice that I have neither the time nor the appetite to further work on the article. If a copy-editor of the caliber of Ceoil wants to give it a shot, or if Wikidea wants to initiate some improvements (e.g., I would get rid of these damn templates in the middle some users dislike—although again wikipolicy is not clearly against them as Sandy argues—or I would add some secondary sources in the cases there are these trivia and exaggerated OR concerns or I would rephrase phrases like the one mentioned by Ceoil) that is fine, but personally I am done with it. And if my vote cares and counts, then I am definitely a keep, and I challenge any of the reviewers here to provide me with a better encyclopedic article on law. If they do find such an article, then I give my word (and you should know, pals, what this means for an Epirote!) that I'll immediately turn my vote into strong remove. But you won't!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Remove. Traditional encyclopedias recruit experts to write their articles. Typically these experts will draw upon their own expertise and background in composing the article. So, if a law expert was asked to write an article on the law for a traditional encyclopedia, he might select some of his favorite cases and quotes to support the points he makes. That, in part, seems to be what happened here. Wikidea apparently has a law degree and knows "what is significant and important and what is not." So, in some instances, instead of appealing to reliable secondary sources, he appeals to his own expertise. That might be fine and dandy for a traditional encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is not one. Wikipedia has very unique policies—WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV—that relegate expertise to the background. A strong foundation of secondary sources is more important, especially for potential featured articles. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Everything I write is completely neutral. Knowing what is significant and important is that. I don't believe Wikipedia's policies are stupid: they know there has to be some selection. In all this debate I note a complete lack of alternatives presented, nobody saying "here's a book and a page reference or a case that should be subsituted for that." Wikidea 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"Everything I write is completely neutral." How is this verifiable? This was one of the least neutral things I've seen on this site. I would like sources, not assurances. Cool HandLuke 14:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, the smell of bitter old grudges Luke. Well done for bringing that up. Just goes to show, this isn't really about the law article, is it? On the competition law page, by the way, it happens now to be rather different, doesn't it. At least I try. You're just out to flog people with dead fish! Wikidea 15:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No, this isn't about that article, and it's not about you. It's about Law. When editors don't use sources, they can sometimes insert biases into an article. Even undoubtedly qualified writers such as yourself have fallen into this trap. It's a general problem with relying heavily on primary sources. We need reliable sources to ensure that these cases—hand picked by a Wikipedian—are representative. Beyond that, the only complaints I have are stylistic, and for that I would defer to SandyGeorgia, who is very familiar with our manual of style. For what it's worth, I agree the templates do seem misplaced in the middle of the article. Cool HandLuke 15:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that's all fine. But I still haven't been told - not anywhere what on earth is wrong with those templates in the middle of the page!!!!!!!!! I think they're good to have there for readers. It follows logically. The fact that it is a template is neither here nor there, and if it's only a matter of opinion, well, tough. It was good a year and a half ago, it's good now.
Sandy said something vague about the style, but I don't see a problem reading it online. And then I got no replies. Ottava said it came up bad printing. But I don't really see how. And I don't see the alternative being proposed. AND, this this the most piffley boring point in the world. It's niggling. It's being officious. It's a waste of time. It's disingenous. If it was so important, why wasn't it ever raised on the Talk:law page? You can't just say "I don't like that" and expect me to guess what you would like. If Sandy can't tell me why the manual of style is right (and, again, this is one of the few grudgey issues that she brought up before it passed FA in the first place, and it was ignored) then what am I supposed to do? "Just defer" is something I can say too.
I do say it on the content. Luke, I think you might know something about law, because you've been engaged in other law pages. Any Commonwealth or US law student would know. Have a look at the pages for all those cases. That should be enough on its own. Where the pages aren't fully developed, then why don't you find a few textbooks and write them? For what it's worth, I'd actually intended to rotate the cases every few months, but never found time. So I just went with what's famous.
In fact, I give up. I'll see you later everybody. I'm not going to work on it any more, and I'm going to stop watching the law page. Ignore everything I've said. I obviously upset Sandy into being mute by challenging her. I've insulted the troll that started this enough (I won't bore you with pasting up links for the various events that lead me calling him a troll, because you probably won't care). Best wishes, and good luck in figuring out what to do. Though it's not worth anything, I think you should keep the page, because it had never been started; and because this was never about quality, it was about your grudges. I'm very sorry, Yannis, if they delist it, because you've done a brilliant job. Wikidea 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. For what it's worth, I doubt Sandy is very upset. It's just difficult to respond to accusations of bad faith. It would be pointless to reply, "no, we aren't blindly following a troll nomination, yes, I do have good faith concerns, no, I'm not a spoiled sport." Cool HandLuke 16:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Remove. Once again, cases cited must have WP:WEIGHT demonstrated. This can only be done by citing secondary treatises and articles to ensure that the cases are characteristic and important. Case law is very deep, and hand-picked coverage can yield diverging conclusions. This effect is often employed by advocates. The only way to ensure neutral coverage is to follow existing reliable sources. This encyclopedia is not a forum for synthesizing and documenting heretofore unexplored legal trends. While the article may not be synthesizing new views, only secondary sources can make it verifiable. Punctured Bicycle explains this issue very well above.
Verifiability and neutrality are cardinal principles here, and I wish that contributors would take the criticisms seriously. Dismissing them with unhelpful labels and personal attacks is an inadequate response, and it's against our behavioral policies to boot. Cool HandLuke 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
What a lovely turn. Now everybody's ganging up because people are talking this personally. It just isn't about the article anymore is it? You've all fallen victim to a troll nomination. Well done. Wikidea 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep Open. I believe this article should be given more time in case anyone has the idea that this should close before October 10th. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. That might be enough time to address the concerns. Cool HandLuke 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I would say keep open too. If I work closely with Yannis, and if he carefully watches my edits it might be do-able, as regards prose at least. This is a vital article, and has recieved huge talented effort to bring it to this stage; be a shame to let it fall on prose. Ceoilsláinte 02:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Note that I am mindful of trite and POV in the article as it stands now; but its easily excised. Ceoilsláinte 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll edit my comments to the article's talk page, so that we do not overload this page, unless Ceoil prefers the opposite!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The Jurisdictions templates are gone, and I cant see they were of much use. Ceoilsláinte 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Progress in the last few days, so I switched to Hold. Does some summary of law in the different jurisdictions (deleted templates) need to come back somewhere in the article, with links to those main articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Frankly; no. I can't see how that long list could ever be anything more than a long list; and not more usefully covered by categories. As the page is structured in a summary style the opening definitions of each tranch should be tightened. In some cases definitions are missing altogether. Ceoilsláinte 22:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Per Ceoil about the templates. About definitions, Ceoil may be correct but sometimes it is difficult to define what you want to define at law (especially if you have to define a whole law branch)! I'll be with you and with the article on Friday or the latest on Saturday, guys.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Please check the dab links identified in the tool box I added at the top of the section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I fixed them, almost all of them. Tomorrow I'll have a look on the external links as well, and I'll check in detail Ceoil's copy-editing.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
From a legal point of view, Ceoil's copy-editing looks fine; I also fixed or removed some dead links. I'll look again at the article tomorrow.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep I printed and read this during last week, and was impresed and even learned something. Im a keep in terms of comprehensiveness, scope, prose, accesability and referencing. This is a very intelligent article. Ceoilsláinte 13:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I offered some further re-writing of the Jurisprudence section (and of some parts of the History of Law), in order to address the worries that before 1700 philosophy of law is neglected. We cannot summarize the whole philosophy of law in one section, as Wikidea has also pointed out, but I now hope that the section reads even better and is more informative. During all my re-writings, my main effort, worry, and fear have been to make the article even more comprehensive and informative, without undoing what Ceoil calls "intelligence", and which is mainly due to Wikidea's different approach of writing, which may seem simplistic, but often manages to "captivate" the reader, and introduce him into the article's world. This combination is very difficult, but sometimes it can be fascinating, taking also into consideration that our different styles arise from two (lately converging however) different legal traditions and approaches (Wikedia is a common law "practical" jurist mind, while I am the product of a stubbornly "theoritical" civil law legal education!).--Yannismarou (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I am also replacing Britannica with more specialized sources, and in Criminal Law I added secondary sources next to the cases, but this is going to be completed tomorrow, because now I ran out of time!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Rewrote "Criminal Law", incorporating the civil law tradition as well. Cases are now backed with secondary sources, although, after reading in detail the chapter, I am more and more of the opinion that the OR arguments are absurd, and these sources I added are needless! I'll check cases in other sections as well, and try to back them with sec.sources where appropriate (a procedure I repeat I regard as needless), but I want to make clear that I do not intend to add secondary sources to the European Court's and Strasbourg's Court decisions mentioned in the article. There should be some limits to this absurdity! These last cases are not OR even with Sandy's friend weird case-related definition of OR. By the way, not even the "criminal law" cases I backed with secondary sources are OR with the aforementioned definition! This FARC should be possibly renamed as "Hunting the Invisible OR"!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Final comment full of sorrow: After this and this, I am once for ever out from this article. And I am sorry for all the time I devoted, regretting all the edits I did during this FARC! Ask Elonka to save it.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Closing. I very much hope Yanni reconsiders his decision with regards to this article and Wikipedia in general. Given that this review is causing casualties, so to speak, I'm closing it as a keep. It's certainly in keep territory, even if a bit more work might have been done. Marskell (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.