Talk:Hans Kelsen

message: It's a little odd that the Kelsen and Schmitt pages cross-ref each other, while the main text of each article makes no reference to the other.  I will try to fix that; I've got Schmitt's Political Theology handy, and there's a good, apropos Kelsen quote in another book I'm reading (tho not at hand right now).
--Andersonblog 19:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kelsen and Schmitt

message: Bhutto attended lectures by Kelsen at Berkeley and later, when Pakistan's trade minister, professed himself indebted to them - Métall p 88.  This does not show that Bhutto was actually a student of Kelsen.  If anyone has further info, let us discuss.  --Wikiain (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in any case quite irrelevant that Bhutto attended his lectures and has no place in an article of this size.159.92.9.7 (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Kelsen and Z A Bhutto

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Previous editor believes that "bindingness" is a more important aspect of Kelsen's theory than "hierarchy," which is highly questionable. Both of Kelsen's chapter on the dynamic theory or law and the static theory of law in this book are explicitly dependent on the hierarchical relationship of norms. Bindingness is much less prominent in the actual discussion of this book by Kelsen. For the present version, as an improvement, it is suggested to retain both terms, even though Kelsen puts more emphasis on the hierarchy of norms throughout this important Kelsen book.
76.193.164.200 (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hierarchy of Norms is an essential concept in Kelsen and the Pure Theory of Law

message: Yes, more to do; and good news that you now have the 5 Gessamaltewerke volumes at your Library. Do you plan to examine them in sequence or with preferred volumes first. 69.209.228.215 (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If only I had such time!  I hope to read the autobiographical material soon. Hopefully it will clear up why Kelsen converted to Catholicism and then to Lutheranism.  I think we can take it from Métall that Kelsen was intellectually indifferent to religion, but not practically so, and the conversion to Catholicism was for career purposes. Maybe Margarete's family said "Ok, be Christian - but at least not Catholic";  however, that is mere speculation. The title of the Werke BTW is simply Werke and the recommended citation is "HKW". --Wikiain (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie is listed in Métall's bibliography as follows:  (1) Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 47. Band, 1920, Seite 50-85;  (2) Tübingen, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1920, 38 Seiten. The first is an article.  I wouldn't call the second, at only 38 pages, a "book" - maybe a booklet or pamphlet, but not a book.  As to church attendance, who would know?  And, if the Kelsens showed up occasionally, what would that prove about belief?  So far as I am aware, Kelsen never wrote anything from or sympathising with any religious point of view - but, on the contrary, whenever he refers to religion he opposes it, very strongly in Secular Religion.  --Wikiain (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing II

message: Hi AutoJellinek.  You have added references to a book - Sabine Baum, Hans Kelsen and the Case for Democracy (2011), currently in note 13  - which I can't find anywhere else.  Could you provide a full citation for it, including place and publisher?  Please also clarify what those you cite are saying:  in particular, just what did Dworkin say (and where) about Kelsen? --Wikiain (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you have provided the publisher of Baum, I have found it and will order it. --Wikiain (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you could insert that reference.  But Kelsen is not even in the index to Taking Rights Seriously or, for that matter, the index to Law's Empire, and in Justice in Robes (p 213) Dworkin merely wonders why Kelsen is reckoned to be so important.  I have added "citation needed" to the caption claiming that Dworkin "defended" Kelsen. I note that the name of the author we are discussing is "Sandrine Baum".-Wikiain (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

text: As I read the caption, it still makes it appear that Dworkin is defending Kelsen's view specifically, which it seems is wrong and is not proposed by Baum.  It is also misleading in that Dworkin is not considering a specialised constitutional court.  I suggest that the picture and caption be removed. --Wikiain (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I see that Dworkin has now gone (good) and that Rawls is back with a new caption.  I would still prefer that Rawls went out:  an interest in Kant on perpetual peace is hardly a notable coincidence and, in any case, I suspect that it fits Kelsen for the first edition of PTL rather than later.  I would also take out Marshall:  Kelsen's design for a specialist constitutional court is actually a far cry from Marshall's argument that a federal supreme court has an implicit power of judicial review; that Kelsen was basing himself on Marshall needs to be shown;  and how far Kelsen was the originator of the idea of a special constitutional court, rather than a guiding hand for the Austrian version, is debated. And yes the confused name is "Sandrine Baume" --Wikiain (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't yet have access to Baume or von Bernstorff (my correction in the bibliography is from his homepage), but will look at them when they arrive.--Wikiain (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabine Baume etc 

message: :File:John Rawls.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at :File:John Rawls.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-free file problems with [[:File:John Rawls.jpg]]

message: The article is too long for an encyclopedia.  --Victor50 (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much too long 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hans Kelsen. 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/20070611173059/http://www.bibliojuridica.org/libros/2/970/3.pdf to http://www.bibliojuridica.org/libros/2/970/3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626234327/http://www-bunken.tamacc.chuo-u.ac.jp/scholar/morisue/datei.htm to http://www-bunken.tamacc.chuo-u.ac.jp/scholar/morisue/datei.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hans Kelsen. 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/20131029185519/http://www.mohr.de/en/law/text-editions/buch/hans-kelsen-werke.html/ to http://www.mohr.de/en/law/text-editions/buch/hans-kelsen-werke.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529223406/http://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol9/No2/art11.html/ to http://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol9/No2/art11.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615123153/http://www.mohr.de/en/law/text-editions/buch/hans-kelsen-werke.html to http://www.mohr.de/en/law/text-editions/buch/hans-kelsen-werke.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have done some editing of the lead section. My impression, however, is that it deserves to be entirely replaced as it is a confusing mix of biographical and theoretical information without a clear structure and selection criteria. Some info deserve to be checked (Kelsen's contribution to international law was paramount, but what about international relations? I doubt it). IMHO the old very short introduction was better: Hans Kelsen (October 11, 1881 – April 19, 1973) was an Austrian jurist and legal philosopher. He has been regarded as one of the most important legal scholars of the 20th century.[1]. Nothing more is needed. Alternatively I'd suggest to translate the lead section of the German page, which is good - I'd be happy to help.--Gitz6666 (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Errantios, regarding this change: the theory links to an article on the book, and it is capitalized like a book title, "Pure Theory of Law". I understand, that Kelsen's theory is meant in that sentence, not just the so-titled publication, but shouldn't it then read "Kelsen's reputation was already well established in the United States for his defense of democracy and for his pure theory of law"? (I'm not bothered by the fact that we link to an article on the book, but here too, one could link Pure Theory of Law one paragraph later, where the book is mentioned for the first time). What do you think? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Sluzzelin.  Since this is the theory's first mention, in "pure theory of law" the "pure" might be understood just to distinguish his theory from others.  That "pure theory of law" is actually the name of his theory, I think should be stated right away and not left to a link and the reader's patience to follow it.  Hence I favour "Pure Theory of Law" here and later maybe just "the Pure Theory". Errantios (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure Theory of Law v pure theory of law 

message: I've added two  templates to the header, representing one user who previously used a different account. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connected contributors