Talk:Law/Archive 3

message: As mentioned in the archived discussion pages, this article is a real mess.
It has a huge paragraph disambiguating law from physics instead of an introduction, four or so sub-articles which don't fit together and contradict each other, and then a six or so lists of links. The lists of links (legal systems, "branches" of law, and so on) get decreasingly wordy and comprehensive as the article progresses.
The opening definition of law makes the claim that law is often referred to as a "human legal code" when contrasted with physical laws and so on. According to Google, this claim is simply false. The phrase "human legal code" only appears twice on Google once Wikipedia content is excluded, and in both cases the phrase is not used as a term of art, but in some sort of discussion about the divine authorship of the Old Testament.
:is this done yet?
As someone else has suggested, jurisprudence wants its own article (and of course, already has one!), so we should get rid of that section. 
:done
Law as an academic discipline is far too long for a general article about law as a social
phenomenon, and the details of what your qualification is abbreviated to in Canada are totally out of place.
:done
Legal systems should probably have its own article, now that it has been reseparated from
branches of law. Branches of law should be integrated instead with the huge list of legal
subject areas. As "branches of law, a sampling", it even admits it's not comprehensive, which invites the question of why some subject matter areas get their own paragraph and others are relegated to the list of links in the next section.
:part done - legal systems now has own article
"Codification of law" seems like someone's attempt to put a subject heading on "law as
codification", and should be at the most renamed. It manages to get in a definition of what law is, which would do better in the introduction.
:not done yet
Mk270 19:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not on this page, agreed, but it could go under property (or real estate) law, which doens't seem to have a link. I am afraid condo law may degenerate into condo rules not actual law, if careful distinction isn't made. But there is still enough law about condos for an article. Rmhermen 16:00, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: I remember interacting with User:Shino Baku and finding the questions and reasoning that were being put forth by this user to be confused and confusing. I think straightening this out is a good idea and I thought about that too, but did not want to seem to autocratic about it being just one person making the suggestion. SB also made a bunch of other edits to law related articles that were problematic. Alex756 00:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: first talk

message: I agree that this article just isn't well. I have been reading some of the equivalent articles in other Wikipedias (in other languages) and they seem much better.
This article should start by saying that one of the problems in law is that nobody agrees on how to define it.
It would be hepful to put here a collection of different definitions of law by different authors. Perhaps starting with Ulpian...
Another important point would be to make a distinction between an «external» and an «internal» (following Herbert_Hart; but other words could be used) perspective about law. The former one is «sociological» (there we talk about a kind of interactions and social processes), the latter is «legal» (here we say, for instance, that law is a set of norms). These are really different things. Law sociologists and lawyers don't talk about the same when they say «law».
:Well, I'm not sure I'd start with Ulpian, and certainly not with Gaius ;), but this page does need a much better structure. A look at the German and Dutch pages on Law is instructive. These people are basically writing about a Germanic or Romanistic conception of law, which purportedly affords easy categories around which to structure the article, so I guess they have a head start. More importantly, German wikipedia has these portals, and so all those lists of this and lists of that which make up so much of the English article are not present, simplifying the picture. I think they should be split off in the English page too.
 Mk270 19:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions in the mess 

message: I find it somewhat disturbing that in this article, the word "litigation" does not appear.  I'm sure it has a place somewhere in this article, as it has a fundamental place in the law.  After some digging around, I've found that Wikipedia redirects queries about "litigation" to "civil law".  I know the list of areas of law is not comprehensive, but it would be beneficial to anyone who is reading the article to be able to quickly associate litigation with civil law.  Can anyone find a comfortable niche for the word, or supply an adequate reason for its absence?  Thanks! Zephlon 20:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litigation? 

message: I think this article could use more description on the spectrum of legal systems around the world. I was reading a webpage  describing the dominant legal systems of the world and the locations where they are practiced. The articles and accompanying map were particularly illustrative. This article could benefit from this sort of info. Any takers? -- PullUpYourSocks 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal systems of the world 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: publication

message: This article is in a real poor state. I'm hoping to do some major editing soon. My major thought it to make it broader in scope. Too much of the article right now is about to north american legal practices and there is not enough about the meaning of "law". If you'd like to discuss it, please do. --PullUpYourSocks 03:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: Any idea where this and source of law should redirect?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to say. To me, its meaning is entirely dependant on what "law" you are talking about. I removed the section by that name in this article because it was confusing as to who used which "source". The fact of the matter is, each tradition has their own "source", or even more precisely, each country has their own variation on the sources of law. Consequently, the "source of law" should likely be mentioned within either the legal tradition and probably not in this page. I'm not very comfortable with the idea of listing, say, five different sources of law and then saying "some countries use certain of these sources while others don't". It's cleaner just to leave it out. PullUpYourSocks 12:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Having thought it over, perhaps a "sources of law" section wouldn't be totally out of line. I still have a lot of reservations about it, but if someone can make it less western-centric than the old one, I could be convinced. PullUpYourSocks 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could move here the text you removed from the article, and we can work on this to make it better?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I have doubts about excluding the section, (in a large part because the source of law it seems worth mentioning somewhere) I still remain sceptical about the section and especially the old version. The previous one consisted almost entirely of examples from select countries, and what inevitably happens is that each person who reads it feels compelled to distinguish their own country's law to maintain balance. This usually results in a terrible mess. Much of the rewrite of the article was with a view to remove concrete examples and move them into more confined articles. My doubts about removal of the "sources of law" section are based on the possibility that there may be substantial content to put in the section that does not include pure lists of examples. However, I can't think of what that content would be. As a compromise, I would propose to put a mention of possible sources of law somewhere in the lead-in or else in the beginning of the "legal traditions" section. Perhaps somethings like: "The laws of each legal tradition are typically derived from any number of sources including a constitution, statute, code, case law, or custom." Any further suggestions would be welcome. -PullUpYourSocks 13:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence is definetly a good beginning. The 'sources of law by country' is useful, if only as an addition to a more general article/section (I came here after creating an article on Dziennik Ustaw, a Polish source of law, see also promulgation).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sources of law]] 

message: I see that law, according to the article, provides an outcome that is "just and fair."  Furthermore, a culture of law contrasts with a culture of honour, where "respect for persons and groups stems from fear of the revenge they may exact if their person, property, or prerogatives are not respected."
It might be helpful if anyone could give an example of a place where law is practiced, as opposed to honour.  I'm unaware of any legal system in this world that is both just and fair (or either), and that does not achieve its effect from instilling a fear of revenge.  In North America, for example, fear of revenge of people with physical power has been largely replaced by fear of revenge of people with money.
In North America, laws are based on the indoctrinated views of the legal establishment, under the pretence of representing the people's wishes.  The primary tool through which they are enforced is coercion.  For example, some people are coerced into plea bargains, loopholes that get around the notion of reasonable doubt, while others are coerced into out-of-court settlements, in which those people or organizations with more money can destroy the lives of those with less, in order to simultaneously vindicate their egos, exact revenge, and make even more money.  This is even more effective than a culture of honour, which merely exacts revenge.
The need for revenge, coupled with the need of lawyers to become wealthy, as well as perceptions of highly-paid judges (most of whom have no idea what a thousand dollars means to the average person) works together to escalate settlements to 5 to 10 times what the average person would think reasonable - except in defamation cases, where the amount is 20 to 50 times higher, due to the perceptions of those in the "posturing profession" of law, whose egos are so sensitive that a slight bruise (deserved or not) is equated with the loss of a limb.
Perhaps culture of dishonour would be more accurate? 24.64.223.203 08:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just and Fair?