Talk:Legal realism

message: Why no critical section?
The article just assumes the attack of the "Legal Realists" on traditional ideas of law and justice, based upon private property, to be correct. Why is there no critical section of the article? For example including thinkers who deny that private property is "coercive" or a "power relationship"?176.253.0.2 (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

message: Doesn't this article adopt a very US POV? Hjorten 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandinavian legal realism? 

message: This is really a terrible summary of legal realism. The Red Tie Rule is closer to a parody than an illustrative example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.11.164 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Plain Bad 

message: That was the worst caricature of legal realism I've ever read.  Yikes!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.104.228 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed -- Just removed the red tie example 

message: Realistic School should be merged here.  The two are overlapped and Realistic School can be a section of this article.PinoyingNeighbor (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal realism. 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/20070612183808/http://auraserv.abdn.ac.uk:9080/aura/bitstream/2164/33/1/050218-001.pdf to http://auraserv.abdn.ac.uk:9080/aura/bitstream/2164/33/1/050218-001.pdf
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) 02:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't know anything about legal realism, so didn't want to edit the page, but did notice the statement "Legal realists believe that legal science should only investigate law with the value-free methods of natural sciences," and this misrepresents the nature of investigation in the natural sciences, as they aren't value-free. Also, given that law is a human construct, seems to me that if legal researchers want to emulate some kind of scientific research, it would be research in the social sciences, not research in the natural sciences, consistent with a later statement that "legal realists turned to the ideas of the social sciences." Similarly, "jurisprudence should emulate the methods of natural science, i.e., rely on empirical evidence" might be changed to "jurisprudence should emulate scientific methods, i.e., rely on empirical evidence," since both the social sciences and natural sciences rely on empirical evidence. I can't speak to legal realism, but if anyone needs more info about natural and social scientific research, I can try to help in discussion here. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to natural and social scientific research 

message: I can't find any reference to this paragraph in any of the inline references - the [6] here references Hart himself, rather than somebody else claiming that he had misunderstood legal realism. These are quite significant claims to be making without scholarly evidence in my opinion, and the whole paragraph reads like original research.
Realism was treated as a conceptual claim for much of the late 20th century due to H. L. A. Hart's misunderstanding of the theory.[6] Hart was an analytical legal philosopher who was interested in the conceptual analysis of concepts such as "law." This entailed identifying the necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of the concept of "law." When realists such as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. pointed out that individuals embroiled in the legal system generally wanted to know what was going to happen, Hart assumed that they were offering the necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of the concept of "law." Nowadays, legal theorists tend to recognize that the realists and the conceptual lawyers were interested in different questions. Realists are interested in methods of predicting judges' decisions with more accuracy, whereas conceptual lawyers are interested in the correct use of legal concepts. 
I have added an "Original research" template to the section.
N3hima (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write the section and I think that the tag "Original research" is appropriate until references are provided. I think, however, that Brian Leiter, "Naturalizing Jurisrudence", could be quoted to support the text, which is of good quality. I'll check later and see if I can find some sources on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research?