Template talk:Law

message: Hi. This template is clearly inappropriate so I have designed a new one which is available here. Please give your comments and thoughts below and edit it as you see fit. Once that one is settled on there may be a need to create a seperate template for Law of the United States incorporating some of the current content. Thanks Andeggs 16:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. It covers the most important articles on law but is not overly cluttered like too many templates. I'd propose possibly adding a reference to List of areas of law. It's currently not the most elegant list, it could maybe even use a better title, but it would be useful when people are searching for law by topic rather than jurisdiction or system. --PullUpYourSocks 20:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed redesign 

message: Thanks for your reply and apology;
*1. I simplified everything in legal theory to the 4 subjects you see (i.e. history, philosophy, economics and sociology) which link to all the subjects there before; you were right about there being too much there before
*2. I put wills next to family law; wills and trusts aren't taught together, like they might be in the states, but you have a point that it should be on there
*3. The EU is the only supranational legal system, or at least the only one of its kind. The reason is that it's the only entity which sovereign nations are legal bound by (rather than politically), setting it apart from the UN, for instance, and public international law generally. The source is the ECJ in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlanse Administratie Der Belastingen, EU-LEX
"THE COMMUNITY CONSTITUTES A NEW LEGAL ORDER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE BENEFIT OF WHICH THE STATES HAVE LIMITED THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, ALBEIT WITHIN LIMITED FIELDS, AND THE SUBJECTS OF WHICH COMPRISE NOT ONLY MEMBER STATES BUT ALSO THEIR NATIONALS . INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LEGISLATION OF MEMBER STATES, COMMUNITY LAW THEREFORE NOT ONLY IMPOSES OBLIGATIONS ON INDIVIDUALS BUT IS ALSO INTENDED TO CONFER UPON THEM RIGHTS WHICH BECOME PART OF THEIR LEGAL HERITAGE . THESE RIGHTS ARISE NOT ONLY WHERE THEY ARE EXPRESSLY GRANTED BY THE TREATY, BUT ALSO BY REASON OF OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE TREATY IMPOSES IN A CLEARLY DEFINED WAY UPON INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS UPON THE MEMBER STATES AND UPON THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY."
The other one that is probably going to follow is said to be the South American Community of Nations. But I think you're right about bias; it looks a bit eurocentric having that there along; I was going to make a supranational law page, with pretty much this stuff on it, and then the link can be to that. Can we leave it till then? Wikidea 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been too busy taking depositions to look at the template until now. As it stands now, I think it's all right.  --Coolcaesar 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more changes 

message: No changes were made to template content. I modified the template to set the state to the best default value; editors are now allowed to set the state in their articles. The following should be put on the page, just below the template (but not in the template itself):
Use    or    to include the template so that it initially displays in, respectively, its collapsed (hidden) or uncollapsed (expanded) state.
Use    to collapse the template only if there is another template of the same type on the page.
Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allow editors to set state 

message: Should ADR, mediation and other forms of dispute resolution be added to this template, as they are of growing significance and usage in the real world, as alternatives to the formal court system? Misterx2000 (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ADR, mediation, etc

message: At present the level of subdivision included is inconsistent. Perhaps that is unavoidable. I think most people looking for Halakha or Sharia Law would look under reglious law and those two don't need mentioning in the template. But where might we find "charity law"? No where, Wikipedia does not even seem to have an article on it, just on subsets of it. Equally Companies_law only has the subset Corporate law included? --BozMo talk 11:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that having Religious Law and both Halakah and Shari'a on the same level makes no sense.  Though seeing as the category is Legal Systems I'd say Religious Law doesn't belong.  If it's ok I'll add Xeer to the legal systems as well, since it's quite comparable to other more well known legal systems.  I'm working on the article and there's still much that needs to be done.  Some pointers and advice would be apreciated! --A is A (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I fixed this 5 years later! I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the risk of stating the obvious 

message: Should "lawyer" be a specific link within the main template eithe in addition to, or instead of legal profession? Both terms/concepts have their virtues but since lawyers are in and of themselves so central to "law" as it exists is most countries, perhaps they ought to be included. Thanks --71.111.205.22 (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people interested in learning more about lawyers would probably be able to click "lawyer," and might not immediately make the direction connect with the phrase "legal profession." My intuition is that "legal profession" is very common jargon among those within the profession or legal scholarship, but not so much outside.--71.111.229.19 (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I fixed this 4 years later! I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawyers

message: This issue was raised under an earlier discussion heading a year ago, but I have two questions relating to the Legal Systems field. First, I think we're neglecting the traditional systems of law that held sway in a multitude of Asian countries prior to the 19th / 20th century, i.e. prior to colonization and/or Westernization. Specifically, Chinese law, Japanese law, Malay law (including today's Indonesia though I confess ignorance as to its contours), Filipino law, Vietnamese law, etc. etc. I recognize that there is not enough Wikipedia about 18th century Vietnamese law, but there is definitely enough information about Chinese law and Japanese law from the mid 19th century and earlier (all the way back to the Zhou dynasty 3000+ years ago). Why are we excluding these systems? Perhaps because they are inactive today, since Japan and China converted to civil and/or socialist law. Just wanted to raise the issue, however?
Secondly, I don't think it makes sense to list Halakha, Sharia, and Xeer and not have the term religious law anywhere in the template. Yes those are three very prominent religious legal systems, but religious law more generally is still active in several parts of the world and it would be appropriate to acknowledge it's a broader category than just those few prominent ones. Specifically, Hindu law is another major system that is missing.
Moreover, for all you comparatists out there, shouldn't mixed systems of law (Israel, Scotland, SA) be listed?--71.111.229.19 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I fixed this 4 years later. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Law and Chinese Law 

message: I think this topic is advancing far enough to be part of the template, so I'm adding it. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Energy law]] 

message: Is there a sidebar version, if not I should make one. -Inowen (nlfte) 17:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar version 

message: I think in the "Other subjects" area, "Law of war" should be sorted under W. 93.142.115.86 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They're sorted alphabetically and since you don't give any reason to do otherwise . . –Ammarpad (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018 

message: Change Divine right to Divine law. Possibly include Divine right under Divine law. For most of its history, Christianity had a theory of divine law, but the divine right of kings was not a common concept until the 16th and 17th centuries, after such things as the Investiture Controversy and the Protestant Reformation. Thinkers like Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo wrote extensively about God as a source of law, but not of sovereignty or kingship. 
Moreover, Islam generally does not recognise the divine right of kings, though it does recognise a divinely-ordained law. According to Sunni Islamic legal theory, a caliph or sultan or emir is not divinely-ordained lawgiver; rather, he is accountable under the law of God, and his reign is only legitimate insofar as he rules according to the Sharia. This was in fact a point of dispute between Sunni and some Shia Muslims, as Shia Muslims believe in a hereditary Imamate, and some Shia leaders like the Safavid Shahs of Persia claimed their rule was divine. Divine kingship is, of course, no longer recognised by the Islamic Republic of Iran, but certain other Shia communities (like the Nizari Ismailis, led by the Aga-Khan; or the Houthis of Yemen, led by the Zaydi Imams of Yemen) still do follow a hereditary divinely-ordained leader. But Sunni Muslims and the majority of today's Shia Muslims do not recognise the divine right of kings, even if they recognise a divine law which can be upheld by kings. 
In Judaism, the source of Mosaic law is likewise also divine. And while there were divinely-ordained kings, such as David or Solomon, the law of God must be upheld even in the absence of kingship, even in diaspora. The modern State of Israel has no monarchy, and those who seek to make Israel a Halakhic state do not generally see a monarchy as necessary for upholding divine law. 
The divine right of kings is a legal justification for secular power. That justification comes from the divine, though, and theories of divine law do not universally include divine kingship. 50.254.174.101 (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: Seems like a reasonable link but I think divine right in this context is more appropriate for the 'top level'. Izno (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018 

message: Given that the lede para for Criminal law draws a contrast with 'civil law', does it make sense to include a link in 'Core Subjects', perhaps to this Civil law page? Humanengr (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also include 'Civil law' in 'Core Subjects'   

message: The Media law link is a redirect to Entertainment law, so we have a duplicate here.
Maybe we should remove the second one and left the first one like this:
 Entertainment law (or Media law)
Pestalozzi90 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented it myself just now. Pestalozzi90 (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media law