Talk:Legal advice

message: Please do not ask for legal advice on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.
This page is to discuss how to improve the article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What this page is for

message: Really, what is this page for?  I ask this because, for somebody who isn't already clear on the concept, this page is as clear as mud.
First, it says that legal advice is a "professional ... opinion", then that legal advice is advice which is (ordinarily) provided for compensation, then it seems to state that legal advice for which no compensation is provided is pro bono, or alternatively, that if some information is provided pro bono, then it's not actually legal advice.
Trying to make sense of this seemingly simple set of statements makes my head spin.
Based on this statement, a "professional" who posts some "opinion" about some legal scenario, and who does it for free has given "pro bono" legal advice, never mind the disclaimer that it is not legal advice.  Either that, or a lawyer who takes a case pro bono does not offer legal advice with respect to that case.
So I think we need to go back and make sure we know what this page is really supposed to be for. Fabrickator (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What this page is for redux

message: "The UK's Legal Services Act 2007 includes the giving of legal advice within the definition of unreserved legal activities"
The Legal Services Act 2007 does not have a definition of 'unreserved legal activities'. It has a definition of 'legal activities', some of which are not 'reserved legal activities', but no such thing as 'unreserved legal activities' (you could imply it, sure, but it's not explicit). Inclined to zap this line and be WP:Bold with this entire un-sourced article if it's not cleaned up... -Rushyo Talk 14:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm

message: I am about to begin rough sketch for article at my userspace User:Mahitgar/legal awareness  on subject 'legal literacy' and/or 'legal awareness'.Requesting openion What is preferable  primary article name legal literacy or legal awareness ;personally I prefer term 'legal awareness' being broader term. You are well come to contribute and improve proposed article  legal awareness.Mahitgar (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: legal literacy and/or legal awareness

message: You are well come to contribute and improve article legal awareness.
Mahitgar (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: legal awareness

message: The top of the article was just modified to state that legal advice is in regard to a particular factual situation.
There was already a statement in the "legal information" section that information regarding "a specific set of facts is almost always held to constitute legal advice".
So this adds somewhat to the confusion as to whether legal information that's not in regard to a specific situation can ever be considered "legal advice".
As an aside, it would be useful to clarify that this article is about "legal advice" when it is used as a term of art, because in ordinary parlance,  "legal advice" is any advice pertaining to the law or its application.  Without that bit of context, this article is a bunch of nonsense. Fabrickator (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  specific factual situation 

message: :Fabrickator, I don't think this page is confusing at all.  It states that "legal advice" is advice given to someone about how the law relates to their specific situation, while "legal information" is just telling someone what the law and legal processes are without commenting on their specific situation.  That seems pretty clear to me.  The article is unsourced, so you might argue that what it says simply isn't true.  But it doesn't seem confusing to me in any way.  I really don't get why it has confused you.  Regardless though, WP:DICDEF (from your prod rationale) has nothing to do with this article.  WP:DICDEF is about how articles are written, and not about what the subject of the article is.  The article isn't written in the form of a dictionary definition at all, so WP:DICDEF is not at all a concern with this article.  A dictionary definition would be written like "Legal advice is a term meaning . . .", and then proceed to give entomology, usage examples, etc.  This article isn't written that way, but instead is written explaining what the concept of legal advice is.  You may call this "a distinction without a difference", but the entire point of WP:DICDEF is about that distinction, so you seem to be completely missing the point of the policy.  Furthermore, since WP:DICDEF is about how articles should be written, it isn't a reason to delete an article unless the article can't be rewritten to be in the form of an encyclopedia article.   It is basically saying that when you see an article written in the form of a dictionary definition, rewrite it to instead be written as an encyclopedia article (but again, I think this article already is written in the form of an encyclopedia article). Calathan (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Calathan, I think you're just plain wrong about this not being a dictionary entry.  Claiming that the page "discusses a concept" doesn't change the fact that it's a page about the term "legal advice" itself. The gist of the article is to specify a set of criteria that seems to have as its main goal to help someone to establish whether a particular statement is or is not legal advice. I previously raised the question as to what this page is for, and I raise it again.  Should this page explain to me the "history" of legal advice?  Should it help me to distinguish between reliable and unreliable legal advice?  Or is it just to help me determine whether or not a particular statement that might be construed to be legal advice is legal advice in accordance with this definition of the term? Vis a vis your statement that WP:DICDEF is about how an article is written, that's not what WP:WINAD#Major_differences states.  It states that if it's about the actual words and what those words can denote, then it comes within this rule. Neither claiming that it's a concept nor changing how the article is written will help when the article is really about the term itself. Fabrickator (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you are saying is just utterly and totally wrong.  As WP:WINAD#Major_differences states, an encyclopedia article is about one thing that a term means, such as "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing".  It then states that a dictionary definition is about all of the things a term can mean.  For example, the articles foot and foot (unit) each are about one of the things that the word "foot" can mean, while the Wiktionary article wikt:foot is about all the meanings of the word "foot".  WP:DICDEF further states that a dictionary article discusses a word's "part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth".  Do you see any of that in this article?  I certainly do not.  This article isn't explaining how to use the words "legal advice", but explaining one meaning of "legal advice".  This is exactly what WP:DICDEF says an encyclopedia article is.  You seem to think that meaning of "legal advice" being described here is a technical one and not the general one, but that has nothing to do with whether this is an encyclopedia article or a dictionary definition.  Even if it is talking about a technical legal concept, it is still explaining the concept and not explaining how to use the term in a sentence, its entomology, etc. Calathan (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Calathan, I think you're pretty clearly misreading WP:DICDEF.  While a dictionary article might attempt to include all the meanings of a word, pluralizations, etc., those aren't determinative of whether or not something is a dictionary article, they're merely indicative.  If you find an article that's providing pluralizations, then perhaps it's a dictionary article.  The key thing is whether the article is in fact "about the words".  Your example of foot (unit) actually fits within this definition.  However, what saves it from violating WP:DICDEF is not the fact that it doesn't attempt to include all definitions of "foot", but because of the WP:WORDISSUBJECT exception (e.g. by the inclusion of historical information).  You seem to think that being "about the concept" rather than "about the words" saves it, but that's an empty claim, inasmuch as just about any word can  properly be described as representing a concept (or a set of concepts).  Given our different readings of WP:DICDEF, I suspect further discussion would be pretty much pointless, but at least it's been amusing. Fabrickator (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed deletion