User talk:Wikidea/Archive 02

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law as FAC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Law[edit]

In order for this to come on the main page I believe it must pass the FAC test. So I nominate this article for making it an FA. --Parker007 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Raul - Please give credit to Wikidea if this becomes a FA article. I have not done any work on this. --Parker007 12:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, there have been so many people helping out in this article you can't just give credit to one person. I have striked struck out your comment. --Maclean1 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this chap can be given all the credit for discrediting me! :) Wikidea 10:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. Mixed reference styles in the lead? I didn't get past that. Please convert your refs to one, consistent style. Also, pls have a look at WP:LEAD, particularly, "The lead section, lead paragraph or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first headline. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first headline." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Object and refer to peer review. Ten days later, still not correctly referenced, an article on a topic as complex as Law - with structural problems - can't be written while on FAC. Compelling prose: Law is usually learned in different subjects. Please withdraw the article and prepare it properly to meet FA standards. Also, pls see WP:FN for footnote placement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
I've just done these references that I think you were talking about. I got mixed up and thought you had meant the links. And I've fixed the objection to the legal subjects opening. The article isn't all that bad though is it? It's better than the "B" which it was given a while ago. I do think, as well, that most of the initial criticisms have been patched up. I'm not sure what the new "structural problems" are, but would be very glad to hear! Wikidea 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second look - far from featured. Seealso templates are used incorrectly (they belong at top of sections), references are not formatted correctly (cite templates may help sort out incorrect manual formatting), no discussion of differences between Napoleonic Law and English Law, drop-down navigational templatess in the body of the article, WP:LEAD is not a summary of the article, external jump to a blog in the text Done, lack of citing throughout, including statements that look like opinion ("The more people are involved with and concerned by how political power is exercised over their lives, the more acceptable and legitimate the law becomes to the people.") Done, and too much text that just doesn't say anything (" there are certain core subjects, that students are required to learn in order to practise law.") Still suggest peer review is a better venue at this stage in this article's development. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for saying more, please see the new updates. But I disagree with a few of your suggestions; Wikidea 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the difference between "napoleonic" law and english law, I think you mean the difference between Civil and Common law, which there are clearly sections on, aren't there?
No, I mean the fundamental difference between the legal systems in Latin America, Italy and France and, for example, Britian and the USA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
Yes, you do mean the difference between civil and common law; Latin America, Italy, France, most of continental Europe, (and some historically interesting places like Louisiana and Scotland) are fundamentally different to Britain, the USA, India, and so on because of the absence of judge made law, and the practice of comprehensively codifying laws. That's what's explained in the civil and common law parts of the law page already; or have a read of the main article Legal systems of the world. Wikidea 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the navigational templates, I can imagine there's a rule about not having them in the body. But in the case of this article, there's no reason why they don't do a very good job where they are. It helps to have links to different countries alongside the discussion of systems. Rules aren't ends in themselves, surely! Wikidea 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same point on the seealso template can't be at the bottom of a section. If there's a rule about this somewhere, it's not very good. It makes sense to have them at the bottom sometimes, after you read about a topic. Wouldn't the words "see also" suggest that you'd "seen something to start with" Wikidea 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GTL and {{See also}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Gtl: "Rather than scattering such additional references thoughout the text of a section, they should be grouped together at the beginning of the section for easy selection by the reader:" Do you think they are "scattered" in the article? Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the lead, it's not an exact summary of the article, you're right. It provides information and quotes that you don't find elsewhere. But it does summarise the main headers. Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)I'm happy to fill out more on institutions though maybe. Is that what you had in mind?  Done Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to core subjects, which you say doesn't say anything is precisely what the headings of the legal subjects follows before the further disciplines part. What would you prefer? Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if you want to refer this article to a peer review, please do so - I haven't seen one of these done before myself. I'm more than happy for you to go ahead and refer! Wikidea 10:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can't be placed at WP:PR and WP:FAC at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, so you can just give some more helpful advice straight away through the FAC review then! That's great :) Wikidea 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Partially fixed, though I wonder if the nominator will respond to any criticisms of the article, since he created the account right before he nominated this article. And I say partially because I thought this problem was confined only to the lead. It actually crops up throughout the article. This article needs lots of copyediting/formatting help before it comes to FAC. Jeffpw 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The image layout and selection could use some work. Most of them are teeny-tiny, and a few don't seem to be all that relevant as illustrations of an article on law in general. For example:
  • Overall, I think the effort of trying to bring such a broad topic to FA quality is very commendable (even if the nomination itself might not be all that serious). / Peter Isotalo 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed that the lead didn't actually make any attempt to define "law", but rather just gave lots of examples of how it's used. I tried to make the first paragraph a bit more encyclopedic. Do feel free to rewrite, but keep in mind that the lead of an article should always (unless its an abstract term or something like it) start with something like "A law is X and Y..." rather than "Law(s) has/have function X and Y..." / Peter Isotalo 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Comment: I think it has room for improvement. Wiki wa wa 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was really pleased to see this nominated, as I have done quite a lot of this article (the layout, all the pictures, the intro, the legal subjects, institutions, etc) since about September 2006. People have criticised the intro and lack of definition before. The problem is really a philosophical one, and you can read a bit about it on the Law#Philosophy of law or the Jurisprudence page, under analytical jurisprudence. But I'll give up arguing and put a definition up. And, I'll rewrite the part underneath, so that you don't have words linking to subjects (although someone seems to have already started on this. As for the images, I agree about the clipboard being a bit naff! Can anyone think of something better that implies "regulation"? The way I got all of them was simply taking them from other Wikipedia pages, because I've been told off before from getting them from the internet or elsewhere. The one of Ronald Dworkin is simply from his page. Anything else I can do? Wikidea 08:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's a bunch of the article written from in the first person plural ("our" is everywhere), which is weird to me. I don't know if this goes against the MoS, does anyone know? Wickethewok 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Object and refer to peer-review. These article needs a peer-review; not a FAC-review. Many problems. Let's enumerate them:
Stylistic:
  1. I see about 15 external jumps.  Done
  2. I'm afraid articles already linked in the main article are repeated in "See also" section.  Done
Verifiability problems: Many citations with printed sources have no pages.
Prose problems:
  1. Un-cyclopedic prose. "The numerous ways that we can think of law reflects the numerous ways law comes into our lives. Contract law governs everything from buying a bus ticket, to our obligations in the workplace. When we buy or rent a house, property law defines our rights and duties towards our bank, or landlord. When we earn pensions, trust law protects our savings. Tort law gives us claims for compensation when someone injures us or damages our property. But if someone harms us intentionally, then criminal law ensures that the perpetrator is removed from society." "Criminal law is the most familiar kind of law that we hear about from the papers, or news on TV, despite its relatively small part in the legal whole." "We"?! "us"?! This is totally un-cyclopedic and improper for an article having to do with the legal science.  Done
  2. "Ancient law" is listy.
Citing problems. Whole sections or sub-sections like "Criminal law" are uncited.  Done
Stubbyness. See, for instance, the stubby sub-section "Civil law".  Done
Content problems.
  1. Let's take "Criminal law". The editor describes us how criminal law is perceived by Common Law. But what about Continental Law? I though this is an article about law in general, and not anly about Common law. Unfortunately, the whole "Legal subjects" section, the "heart" of the article is directed towards common law. Continental law is almost ignored.  Done
  2. And what about legal procedure: civil and criminal? This is also a part of law! But I do not see the adequate analysis here.  Done
  3. And only a sub-sub-paragraph for European Law? Nothing about the recent developments and controversies with the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?
  4. The article seems to ignore sociology of law.  Done
  5. In "Philosophy of law" where is Immanuel Kant? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel? OK, let's forget these guys. Where is Hans Kelsen?  Done
  6. The human rights related material is more than inadequate. Nothing about the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?  Done
  7. Civil-Common law is not the only distincion. Other important categorizations such as private law-public law are ignored.  Done
  8. Nothing about the differences of the way administrative law works in continental and civil law? Conseil d'Etat in France does not deserve mentioning in "Constitutional and administrative law" or "Judiciary"?  Done
I'm afraid the current version of the article confirms the law quality of many law-related articles of Wikipedia in the most vivid way.--Yannismarou 13:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Yannismarou. And I find it unsatisfactory to plunge straight into a modern, industrial, capitalist view of law before encompassing its universal aspects in the lead. Tony 15:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thanks for all the interest! I've done lots of the suggestions:
  1. changed first person plural/prosey style in introduction
  2. added Kelsen to jurisprudence
  3. improved the criminal law section (although, please note that the mens rea, actus reus stuff isn't at all only common law, in Germany its der Tat und Vorsatz, in France intention e act, etc - criminal law's pretty similar in the fundamentals)
  4. added comment on civil/common law not being the only distinction in the legal systems section
  5. emboldened section on Procedural law, which is with the further disciplines section
  • Things I'm usure of though are these:
  1. do we need sociology of law? I took a course in this in Germany, and it's often very specific to particular systems. It's often political philosophy, and as you can see nobody has much to say about it in its own article. Max Weber is mentioned in jurisprudence
  2. I'm afraid disagree about giving more than the passing mention to EU law in its own right - just as I would about a separate section for US Law or Greek Law. On the other hand there are links there for both the Convention and the Court of Human Rights; the Constitution might be something to put in in future, but perhaps we should wait till it's ratified.
  3. What does "15 external jumps" mean? I'm not too good on wikijargon!
  4. I'm not quite sure what a modern, industrial, capitalist view of law refers to. I agree that the history of law isn't so good though.
  • Please keep the suggestions coming (although I don't take responsibility for the quality of all the law related articles!)Wikidea 01:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The word law derives from the late Old English lagu, meaning something laid down or fixed.[3]" This is an external jump. Such links should be put, if they are regarded as necessary, in inline citations with the use of Template:cite web or Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 16:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point of me. I respect Wikidea's opinion about European Law, but I want to stress that European law is not like US or Greek law, because "The European Union is unique among international organisations" (per Wikipedia!). I as reading an article of Sally McNamara of the Thatcher Center of Freedom; I quote:"Justice Antonin Scalia notes that the Framers of the US Constituion were absolutely clear that the US has a different moral and legal framework from Europe, one that is jeopardized by the aggressive exportation of EU law. The European COurt of Human Rights has been responsible for some truly egregious rulings in recent years. With a Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EC of Justice and EC of Human Rights would together preside over the final destruction of common law tradition and promote judicial activism both within and outside of the EU." And Sally McNamara inists: "The wrongful interpretation of the American Constitution on the basis of foreign law would only increase with an EU constitution that encompasses such a vastly prescriptive legal enterprise. As Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said recently, "what we see here is a vision of international law that if taken aggressively would literally strike at the heart of some of out basic fundamental principles"." I obviously do not espouse the approach of Scalia and McNamara (with Chertoff I'm not sure!), but they do state interesting things, and they reveal that EU law is not like other national laws; it is regarded as something more; as a threat for the common law! And within this framework European Constitution (a misleading title of the treaty for me, but anyway) and the atached Charter of Fundamental Rights are of huge importance IMO, and deserve some further mentioning.--Yannismarou 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe it or not I think I added that quote about EU law being unique - it's from a case called Van Gend en Loos, about the free movement of workers, and its famous line is that the EEC (as it then was) constitutes a new legal order - that's the idea I wanted to get across by talking about EU law as the first and only example of a supranational legal system (although in S. America, something similar may happen). You're definitely right that it deserves special mention for this reason. Though I'm not sure that the common law will die, as the Europhobe thatcherites want us to believe! I'll try to change these external links :) Wikidea 00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Abstain (due to conflict of interest) Isn't all the objections corrected with due diligence? --Parker007 06:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I still see some stylistic problems like the external jumps.--Yannismarou 14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the external jumps, correct me if I missed some, I found only 6. The 6 External Jumps had reference templates used after it, or they had been wiki-linked to other articles in the same sentence, so I deleted them. --Parker007 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to insist in my objection per Sandy's comments. The article needs proper preparation and a thorough peer-review, in order to get rid of its current deficiencies (inconsistent referencing [many long paragraphs have not even one citation], not brilliant prose, some listy sections which should get rid of the bullets style and get proper prose [like ancient law], I see printed sources without pages etc.). Under the pressure of WP:FAC I don't think that these things could be achieved. A delay of 2-3 weeks will not harm the article. It is on the right track, but IMO it needs some further work, and a peer-review would probably help it "shine".--Yannismarou 08:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read today's reply by User:Wikidea to Sandy's comment, if you haven't already done so. The reason many long paragraphs have not even one citation is because it is just a summary of the "main article", if you know what I mean. Sure we could just remove the bullets in some section, but wouldn't that make the article worse? And regarding your comment of printed sources with no pages, I doubt any Wiki-editors have the actual books, (I may be wrong though). But in any chance, you are the more experienced editor of Wikipedia than me, so I guess you know what a FA is, and what it isnt, so I am changing my vote to abstain, due to conflict of interest. --Parker007 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Human Right law is POV. Human Rights doesn't come from anybody but the human itself. According to UN Human Rights can not exists without a state giving the people those rights. And the article echoes this. UN's way of creating freedom is through socialism rather than liberty shown clearly by their publications and actions. Only their side is presented in the article. Lord Metroid 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is your POV, which IMO does not constitute a valid objection. In legal terms the relevant section is not inaccurate. HR may come from the human itself, but how are you going to defend them without documents protecting them? Hm?!--Yannismarou 07:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way you can defend your rights which among many are life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness is to do like a monarch would do. If someone try to violate a monarch's right, that man soon will know that he can not do so without force and the monarch would use force against that violator. The document is nothing worth without a person himself standing up for his rights. Sometimes that may lead to death, protecting one's rights isn't easy. It wasn't easy for monarchs either but that is the only way one can protect ones rights. The state is a direct peril to these rights as the state is an organization of force(If you don't do as the state want you to do. You are in big trouble as the state tries to force you to do so by various means of coercion). The UN want to protect people's right by granting(granting is a paradox in itself as the state has nothing to grant) the individual his human rights using the state, the very entity that is the number one threat to someone's human rights, the threat which was widely recognized by the founding fathers of USA. Lord Metroid 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude, what you say is very interesting, but I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the article. The state may be a threat for HR, but it is also the institution that can protect them, and that is why societies have assigned it this authority. Do you forget that also the US Constitution protects human rights and that the Supreme Court of the US (a state institution) has created through his decisions a net (which sometimes get looser) protecting HR? So, I don't know what the founding fathers wanted, but the way the US institutions and the way UN institutions proceeded and implemented the protection of HR have many similarities. At the end of the day, the individual who stands up for his right has no chance to protect them effectively, if the state where he lives does not respect HR. Of course, there is an interaction between individual and state, but the individual who lives in an organized society has realized that the most effective way to create this "net of protection" is to assign certain authorities to a state strong enough to impose itself through force, and to try through a democratic structure to make this state better and to further improve the "net of protection". Now, UN explicitely recognizes the primordial role of the state and, as you say, the founding fathers don't. This may be true, because: 1) UN is an international organization consisting of states, and it cannot ignore them; UN lives through the state; 2) UN is also influenced by the European conception of "state" which is more regulatory than the US state. But, despite the differing philosophy behind the words or the differing expressions, the outcome is the same: The UN acknowledges the primordial role of the state in the protection of UR, and the US, as a "strong state" (per Schmitt and per Fukuyama!) adhere to the philosophy of UN, using state institutions (courts) and documents (constitution and law) to protect HR!--Yannismarou 08:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it is a very interesting concept. I didn't think I had anything further to reply until I noticed the edit summary, "what has this to do with the article?", If the article is about the written law then I suppose it would have nothing to do with the article. Maybe a clarification in the article that the article is only a mere presentation of the various laws existing as laws written in text. However if the article is about concept of law in general which it seems to be as one scrutinize the article in general. Then I think it would be beneficial to include the philosphy of why the laws exists and the idea behind their implementation. Like it has been done in other sections of the article regarding other kinds of laws.
Comment, Better yet, rewrite the article to create a more logical representation. Because as it is now the information on one subject such as Human Rights are spread widely over the different sections which makes it hard to get an overview. Lord Metroid 14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe human rights article is reasonably good: perhaps that's the place to raise these matters? Have a read about Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, who say some quite interesting things about enforcement and natural rights. As yet, I don't really know what you mean about the philosophy of why laws exist. Read the Philosophy of law article; and political philosophy (which is covered on the law page itself). Wikidea 02:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put ticks next to all the requests for changes, and in my view, all the criticisms have been dealt with. The exceptions are the "structural problems" and the "capitalist view of law" because I don't know what these things mean. Also I tend to disagree about lists, because sometimes they're necessary; and not citing pages, because sometimes its general. But thank you to the useful people that have made specific criticisms. Wikidea 05:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the legal systems section, there's information about the history of these systems and where they are in practice, but no real explanation about what they are really about, or what is the difference between them. CG 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that supposed to be covered under the "main article" above the paragraph? --Parker007 07:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you have to provide a small summary about what each system is about. CG 09:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Object - Prose issues; it feels a little chatty at times. Some POV-ish sentences, such as "But despite the complexity, law is a highly rewarding study" lurk, Done and I'm not sure about the Civil Society para either. Done Footnote placement doesn't follow WP:FN. CloudNine 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would much appreciate if you were to explain how the "Footnote placement doesn't follow WP:FN." --Parker007 07:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've hopefully improved on the suggestions above; but I too don't know what is wrong with footnotes. I've written a lot of footnotes before, and I am really not sure why they are being wrongly placed. Please do explain what you mean! Wikidea 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It means the ref marks go after punctuation on WP.  Done. Gimmetrow 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not ready to support this article, and my objection stands. Because of that I decided to offer the article a full-scale review. These are my remarks:

  • Some parts of the article are still under-cites. See for instance "trusts and equity", where the first paragraph is uncited or sections (and sub-sections) "Civil law"  Done, "European law", "Asian law"  Done, "Legislature", "Executive", and "Religious law" Done (no citations there). I could add a lot of these ugly [citation needed]s, but I do not want to do it.
  • "Human rights" law isn't is a part of international law? And souldn't we mention that the "European convention on human rights" is a convention with a binding force, whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not?  Done
  • the ECHR is technically not binding. Countries are more politically obliged to adhere to judgments (some still don't). You could say it's binding via the EU, where EU law is concerned (from the Solange II judgments), although that's why the EU is mentioned as a one of a kind. Good point about public international law not being binding though. I'm putting that in.
  • "Ancient law" remains listed (IMO)  Done and undercited. Three "bullets", which IMO should be turned into proper prose have no citations.
  • "Austin and Bentham, following David Hume thought this conflated what "is" and what "ought to be" the case. They believed in law's positivism, that real law is entirely separate from "morality"." Uncited assessments.
  • "Kelsen believed that though law is separate from morality, it is endowed with "normativity", meaning we ought to obey it. Whilst laws are positive "is" statements (e.g. the fine for reversing on a highway is $500), law tells us what we "should" do (i.e. not drive backwards). So every legal system can be hypothesised to have a basic norm (Grundnorm) telling us we should obey the law." Uncited.
  • "Today's proponents, such as Richard Posner from the so called Chicago School of economists and lawyers, are generally advocates of deregulation, privatization, and are hostile to state regulation, or what they see as restrictions on the operation of free markets." Uncited.
  • "John Locke in Two Treatises On Civil Government [45] and Baron de Montesquieu after him in Spirit of Laws [46] advocated a separation of powers between the institutions that wield political influence, namely the judiciary, legislature and executive. Their principle was that no person should be able to usurp, as Thomas Hobbes wanted for an all powerful sovereign, a Leviathan[47] of power." (the above sentences are just an example) Try to have the inline citations at the end of the sentences. Otherwise, you interrupt the prose flaw. Put them in the missle only if it is necessary for emphasis reasons.
  • I see what you mean, but I think that to some extent, this is unavoidable. In the case above, I'd have to turn it into three sentences; I think most of the others are where you have cases, and they really ought to have citations alongside. Wikidea 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coase said that regardless of whether the judge ruled that the sweetmaker had to stop using his machinery, or that the doctor had to put up with it, they could strike a mutually beneficial bargain about who moves house that reaches the same outcome of resource distribution. Only, the existence of transaction costs may prevent this. So the law ought to pre-empt what would happen, and be guided by the most efficient solution. The idea is that law, and regulation, is not as important or effective at helping people as lawyers, and government planners, believe." Uncited; since he "said" these things, we need a source to verify that.  Done
  • "More recently Max Weber, and many others, reshaped thinking about the extensions of the state, which come under the control of the executive. Modern military, policing and bureaucratic power over ordinary citizens' daily lives pose special problems for accountability that earlier writers like Locke and Montesquieu could not have foreseen. The custom and practice of the legal profession itself is an important part of people's access to justice, whilst civil society is a term used to refer to the social institutions, communities and partnerships that are the political base of the law." Further uncited assessments.
  • "Most legislatures are bi-cameral, having two legislative houses." OK, but unicameralism doesn't deserve mentioning (still alive in Denmark, Greece, Israel)?  Done
  • "Under such presidential systems the executive is directly elected by a popular vote, and may appoint a cabinet that is not directly elected." This is inaccurate: 1) It is not the executive which is elected by popular vote, but the president himself, who then appoints the government (which is not usually elected), 2) Again, the president is not always elected by "popular vote". A characteristic example is US; the president is elected by representatives of the states not the popular vote (see the 2000 US elections). I think that the relevant article has a more accurate definition of the presidential system: "A presidential system, also called a congressional system, is a system of government where the executive branch exists and presides (hence the term) separate from the legislature, to which it is not accountable, and which cannot in normal circumstances dismiss it." The part in italics is indeed the most important, and the definition in the article in question fails to include it.  Done
  • "The military and police are sometimes referred to as "the long arms of the law". Referred by whom? As it is now this uncited assertion-quote, it looks like weasel.  Done
  • IMO in "Military and Police" Carl Schmitt deserves some mentioning, since he was the first theoritician who focused on the important of enforcement, and on the theory that the state is basically a machine of legal violence and enforcement (see his related theoris about the state of emergency and the distinction "friend and enemy" ("freund und feind")). But again this may be a personal preference.
  • I'm not sure if in "Bureaucracy" the reader gets the right idea; that for Weber bureaucracy is not a bad thing, but an institution necessary for a developped state; that it is another thing bureaucracy as an institution, and another thing bureaucracy as "red tape"; that the conception of bureaucracy in England or US is different from its conception in Germany, France, Greece etc. where the public administration is built on bureaucracy.  Done
  • Many printed sources in "References" still have no pages. This is an important problem for an article set to become FA.--Yannismarou 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply thanks for all this. I'll do my best. A lot are really just a matter of reading the articles already cited, a few are tricky to get books on. (Weasel? The "long arm of the law" is from Dickens!) Wikidea 10:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have updated the rating to A from B via the Assessment scales provided for: This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale. & This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration. Law has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. If it was wrong for me to do this please revert and state your reason here. Previously instead of A it was B. --Parker007 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm reluctant to rate as A-Class articles that have not gone through (at least!) GAC. If this article passes FAC, your rating will be of no importance; the article will be FA. If the article fails FAC, then it will be rated as A-Class, although it has never gone through GAC. So, you will have rated as A-Class a failed FAC, which will be neither officially recognized a good article!--Yannismarou 10:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A picture for a smily face --Parker007 11:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do you think if it gets to FA status, and is featured on the main page many anon editors with knowledge about law will chip in to improve all the sub articles, which has been given a brief mention in the Law article (i.e it states Main article above)? --Parker007 11:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But again my opinion is that the driving force of Wikipedia are not anon editors but "eponymous editors" like you and Wikidea who dedicate time in the project. And what appears in the main page must really be "our best", so as not to receive criticisms for the quality-level of our articles.--Yannismarou 12:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can someone tell me, how do you use a template, and repeat it throughout the text but with different page numbers? I mean, I know how to go "ref name=xxx" and then a template, but you can't have different pages in each footnote when you do it that way. Wikidea 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, stick something different to the right of "page ="? Oh, and which template is this? And are you trying to give references to different parts of the same document the same name? That just won't work (if that's what you're doing!).--Rmky87 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another questionSorry, just the cite book reference template - I mean I don't want to keep having to write out the whole thing each time I refer to a different page; I was hoping that I could do the ref name=xxx thing; is that what you say I can't do??
    • Comment You can if you plan to use the same page again.--Rmky87 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of poor structure. It's a very difficult, complex topic whose boundaries are hard to define, and the article does a good job of summarizing many of the areas of law. However, the opening two paragraphs are shockingly confusing, there should be a more general definition & history section at the beginning, and the all the legal branches should be discussed equally. With some work it could be featureable. Theonlyedge 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You aren't being clear - is it the structure or the introduction that doesn't suit your fancy? Which bit shockingly confuses you? If you read the article, especially down to philosophy of law, there's a very good reason for not doing a definition at the start. Everyone agrees about history improvements - but you haven't given any reason why it should go before legal subjects. Surely the substance is the most important thing first!Wikidea 09:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Update: IMO it is not so important if history section is first or last. Wikidea has his arguments. The most important thing is comprehensiveness. I want to inform the other reviewers here that I have started some edits in the article (citing, rephrasing, formatting). I think that it is on the right track, and I would like to ask Raul not to close yet this nomination. I'll focus my attention now on the formatting of the citations (in some cases there is huge inconsistency). With the main work of Wikipedia, and my parallel minor edits, I hope that the article will soon be ready to make it through.--Yannismarou 11:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Reply. You are right, the history-location argument was nit-picky. But the article's intro remains very confusing, and the branches section comes as a bit of a shock because only a weak definition has been given at that point. Still oppose, Theonlyedge 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC). Re:Reply. I rewrote the lead section, in order to serve better its role per WP:LEAD. Do you think it is still confusing? Can you be more clear about what should be changed in the branches section, so as to initiate improvements?--Yannismarou 15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object - its tone is far too chatty and it seems to be quite messy. I think it would be helpful if some parts of it were trimmed down and moved to the main articles. Some comments jumped out at me:

"But if the harm is criminalised, and the act is intentional, then criminal law ensures that the perpetrator is removed from society." This sentence implies that everyone who commits a crime goes to jail, which is obviously not true.

changed "is" to "can" and thanks for catching that one. Wikidea 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Criminal law is the most familiar kind of law from the papers, or TV news, despite its relatively small part in the legal whole." Familiar to whom?

  • "Criminal law" rewritten and cleaned.--Yannismarou 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well almost all people who haven't studied law that I meet, but you're right, and it's gone.Wikidea 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Developed political parties, debating clubs, trade unions, impartial media, charities and perhaps even online encyclopedias are signs of a healthy civil society." I really dislike the link to Wikipedia here, it just smacks of a self-reference. In fact I dislike that entire sentence as a whole, especially as it has no reference. Who decides what makes a healthy society? You? Cites please. For the following sentence also: "A developed system of law is the strongest sign of a civil society, just as civil society is vital for the law itself."

Yes, me. Sorry, it was a joke for the end of the article, but I suppose a sense of humour doesn't belong there. It's changed. I'm glad you have no worries with the stuff in between! Wikidea 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a few things I noticed that I thought were iffy. I don't have the time to go over it properly. I must say I'm surprised this has come up for FAC, after looking at the preceding discusson above and the amount of objections that have been raised. I don't think FAC is meant to be the same as peer review. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not, and that is what I pointed out from the first moment. But, at least, there is now an ongoing effort to make this article featurable; whether it will work or not is something we'll see. And, although many things are left to be done, if you compare the article that was submitted to FAC with this one, you'll find great steps towards the right direction. So, even if the FAC fails, the article earned something from this procedure. DOn't you think?--Yannismarou 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • About changes from Yannismarou's page
  • First, I'm afraid Brittanica is WRONG with its definition of law - law isn't always binding; public international law isn't; it also says that the people need to accept law as binding, which is wrong as well if you're a positivist. Unfortunately, if one takes jurisprudence seriously, this is why we have so much debate in the philosophy of law; I'm putting back the composite definition - but I see the criticism in the intro's complexity from Theonlyedge. Can you suggest anything else?
  • Second, I'm not sure about the etymology and definition's section; I like Rousseau too; but he's a natural lawyer, and as you see he's saying "an unjust law is not a law" or lex injusta non est lex, as the very old saying goes; now this is bitterly contested by all the positivists since Bentham. The definition of law is the philosophy of law (or analytical jurisprudence). I know this is going to seem boring and obtuse, but it's important. If one doesn't try to deal with definitions, then the etymology looks a bit small for its own section.
  • Third, I'm just making a few of the photos smaller, and don't you think the opening photo looks better if bigger?
  • Fourth, I wanted the criminal law case, Dudley and Stephens in there as an example of how a case might spin out; it brings the section more to life by illustrating what can happen. I was going to put one into the trusts section too, because you raised it before.
  • Can I please stress to everyone else who is helping out, do not attempt to define law in a comprehensive way. The definition is the philosophy of law!!! Wikidea 00:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidea, what was the problem with the "etymology and definition" section? And if you don't like the definition of Britannica, why did you have to revert the whole lead, as I rewrote it? You see that the lead is under attack by reviewers here, and I agree: it is really confusing. Yes, I suggest a most concise lead, with an one-sentence definition (yes, we need a "comprehensive definition" in the lead!), and a clearer distinction of branches and systems. As it is now, it is really a mess. (The prose in the lead gets uncyclopedic, just like the prose throughout the article, as it has been correctly mentioned above) More definitions of law can go to a seperate "Definitions and etymology" section as I wrote it. And what is the problem with Rousseau?! Of course, it is not an official definition of law. It is not even a stricto sensu definition. But this is a quite interesting short analysis with historical value. I know it may have "flaws", but all the definitions of law have flaws. Even those you mention No legal scholar has offered a satisfactory definition of law. And I added "Rousseau" not as "definition", but as a "quote". It is something parallel; it is something different; it offers what IMO and in other people's opinion constitutes the "human element", which is something very useful for a FA. But I'm afraid why are not there yet, are we?
  • And did you read one of the last criticisms: "I think it would be helpful if some parts of it were trimmed down and moved to the main articles." Why, on earth, should we have the whole criminal case here?! What matters is the reference of "necessity". For anything else, for more details, the reader can go to the case's article. This is the essence of WP:SS.
  • Anyway ... I don't know if it is still worth working on this article. Obviously, ten hours of work went for nothing ... --Yannismarou 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mate, do you believe you're the only one who's put in some effort? Wikidea 12:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public internation law is not binding?!! Huh?! I now realized what you wrote, and I'm a bit shocked! I strongly object that! Of course, it is. The fact that there may be no courts to impose it does not mean that it is not binding. International treaties, and decisions of UN security council under chapter 7 are binding. A non-binding international treaty is no international law treaty! The decisions of the Hague Court (not the criminal one, which is also binding) are binding! The decision of the international criminal courts are binding! If an internation treaty of decision is not binding, then it is no law! Even the UN human rights declaration is being regarded by some as "binding" through the theory of soft law. Thus, even the non-enforceable documents of international law are getting through soft law enforceable! Therefore, your objection for Britannica's definition does not stand. I had decided not to put it back, but now I'm convinced that you are wrong! It is back!--Yannismarou 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't upset yourself. You're welcome to manipulate the definition of binding to fit into the Brittanica definition, but you'll find yourself at odds with most of the people who've thought about this longer than an FAC review. Do you mean international law is morally/politically binding do you? Does that mean something is legally binding when it's morally binding? Or does it have to be enforced in some way? In what sense is the decision of the ICJ binding when a nation state doesn't listen? Hmmm, doesn't sound very binding to me. I'd leave it to the philosophers if I were you. Wikidea 12:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want you to mention me one state that has not followed ICJ rulings! I assure you there is none!! All ICJ rulings have been implemented by the involved parties. International law is binding, because it is legally binding! I don't know how to explain it to you! Whan two states sign an international treaty, they have a legal obligation to follow its provisions. It is not a moral obligation, it is not a political obligation; it is a legal obligation! When a state breaks its obligations and violates the Treaty, then it violates legal obligations. When a state violates the Geneva Treaty duuring a war, then it violates its legal obligations; and it may be held accountable to that by the Security Council-not for political violations, but for legal violations. Iran is now held legally responsible for violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Its signature to the Treaty entails legal obligations. If it had not signed it, the US wouldn't be able to initiate all these procedures against it.--Yannismarou 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay maybe I was getting ahead of myself. I'm thinking of things like the UN resolutions against Israel that are ignored; or the ius cogens norms that go unheeded, you're probably right about the ICJ; I finally found all the jurisprudence books I've quoted, and Hart makes says it's "binding" - Raz is another one, he says "authoritatively binding" - I'm not a fan of these two, and saying "law is that which is legally/authoritatively binding" is pure tautology, but yes, they say binding; I'm wrong. But I think we can quote them rather than an encyclopedia quoting them. I found a good few sociology of law books too. You'll get all your refs. Wikidea 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the change of place of legal systems, the reason it doesn't belong at the top is because when you start to learn law, you must grapple with the content of it. The people who I'm interested in reading this article are people who want to learn something about what law does, not which bit of the world they belong to. That's why it's important to start with subjects. I know a lot of editors looking at this will be more concerned with the form, the style, the use of reference templates and nice looking boxes with quotes. But that's not the way to get people to learn about law, and is why every university teaching law starts the same way as the article, with basic subjects. Wikidea 12:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you don't see is that if you put the subjects first, you have to speak to the reader about the differences between common law and civil law in each branch, without having explained yet to him what are these systems! And, this is no university lecture. This is an encyclopedic article. Anyway, I disagree, but I had it your way, although, when you see that two other users are against your opinion, you may have to listen to them a bit.--Yannismarou 14:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I add some [citation needed]s in some parts of the article there are unsourced claims.--Yannismarou 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have added the Oxford Handbook, but I do not see its full data (ISBNS etc.) Rhodes is one of the editors; is he also the author of the part you quote?--Yannismarou 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry yes, Ch. 19 called "Public Bureaucracies" is by Donald F. Kettl; and Ch. 8 called the "Development of Civil Society" is by Jose Harris - thought I put the isbn in - it's 0199275696, but I'm no good with the refs, and didn't know how to do chapters Wikidea 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you keep some things from the changes in the lead?!!! You have the etymology at the end, with no connection with the rest of the paragraph. The etymology should go after the definition. Don't you see that? Definition and etymology are connected. And why don't you insist to have the legal subjects before the legal systems. Both me and Reswik say that the systems as more general should go before the subjects. I still believe this is the correct thing.--Yannismarou 14:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I've written excellent sections on legal systems (ha ha) but I still think it's better to start with the substance; I don't think people should be led to believe that the approach to law from one system or another alters vastly the outcomes in rules, because there's more in common than divides. Wikidea 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following citations have citations with printed sources without mentioning pages: 1, 4, 5, 6, 34, 53, 93, 95 and 100. Even Hegel and Webel should be cited. A general reference of their books is not enough.--Yannismarou 17:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support It fits the criteria of "What is a Featured Article." --Maclean1 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I turn my vote to neutral for the time being; a lot of work has been done here by a lot of people (especially Wikedia - I also want to thank Robth for his immediate response to my request for prose help), and I think the article is too too close to FA status (and much better than many law articles in other encyclopedias - we have raised the standards too high here!). Some minor flaws do not justify an objection like now. I'll initiate some further improvements, and I think that I'll be able soon to give my full support to the article.--Yannismarou 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral; Are you kidding me? The first paragraph has 6 references. This is way beyod FA status. I say Super FA status! --Parker007 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parker, you don't judge FA statuss by the number of references in the lead. Please, I know something more about FAs! I've nominated and promoted some of them myself. A huge work is under way right now, so as the article to be a proper FA. Please, respect that, and don't jump into rushy conclusions.--Yannismarou 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and sorry for the comment. --Parker007 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Yannis' request, I took a look through this over the past day or so and tweaked the phrasing in a few places where it was slightly unusual. I'm in no way knowledgeable about law, so I can't really speak to the content or the referencing of this article very much. What I can note is that I found the phrasing in the Civil Law and Trust and Equity sections to be ambiguous and confusing. I left some commented out questions in those sections, and would appreciate seeing them clarified. Other than that, this looks very good, and it's excellent to see a challenging "top-level" article like this brought up to such a high standard. --RobthTalk 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to clarify the Civil Law section. I'll soon focus on the "Trust and Equity" secion. Done--Yannismarou 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are the last developments in the article:
  • The prose has been reworked and copyedited by Wikedia, Robth, and, in some sections, by Reswik.
  • I wikified and fixed all the citations and references, adding pages, data, and, where necessary, further sources. I also provided clarifications in the "Civil law" section, and trimmed "See also" section incorporating some links in the text.
After these developments, and the work of all the previous weeks, I can now say that this article definitely deserves FA status. Therefore, I change my vote, and, although I have become one of the contributors to this article, I think I can offer my enthusiastic support.--Yannismarou 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. The effort put into this article while it has been on FAC has been phenomenal. This is now an extremely impressive article on a very difficult and complex subject, and it fully deserves FA status. —Cuiviénen 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this page has overrun its time. Thanks to Yannis, this surely is the best referenced page there is! Make everyone happy, and declare it FA! Wikidea 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I've tried to straighten out some of the use of "publisher" vs. "work" in sources using {{citeweb}}, but I'm not sure I've caught them all. Also, per WP:GTL, navigational templates belong at the bottom of the article; this article has an entire section (Jurisdictions) of navigational templates in the middle of the article (against WP:GTL, unsightly and distracting). A method or restructuring or rewriting to refer to navigational templates at the bottom of the article should be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply*Sandy Georgia, I can see you like the WP:GTL rules, but you didn't respond to my comments above about why it isn't always appropriate to not put navigational templates in the middle of an article. Isn't the burden on you, in this case, to say why it's "unsightly and distracting"? The rules are suggestive, rather mandatory. And shouldn't you propose the way to be found, if you don't like it? I think the templates work well where they are. They're useful and informative, whereas if we shoved them to the page's bottom, they might not be. That said, I'm happy to hear your suggestions. Wikidea 12:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikidea/Archive_02&oldid=132104645"