Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Problems of POV articles

Many (most) of the articles on law show a strong US leaning. Now that is OK since most of the contributors have been US lawyers etc. I am happy to add English/UK material as necessary.

However, in some cases this is difficult or impossible since the articles are completely POV. They are (or may be) specific to the US and are quite wrong for the UK and possibly other or many other jurisdictions. I cannot edit them and say: in the US X is true while in the UK Y is true since I don't know US law very well (or at all).

My suggestion, and I admit it is contraversial and a big job, is this: all articles are written in general terms as NPOV as possible with either sections, or better still a consistent set of side articles, on the situation in particular jurisdictions.

For example the article on Third party beneficiary would be rewritten to explain (1) what a third party beneficiary would be (if one existed); (2) that there was no recognised concept of a third party beneficiary in common law; (3) that (I am guessing here) in the US such a concept was developed; and (4) that in England the idea was rejected and had to be introduced by statute. The substance of the article (which is US POV) could then go to Third party beneficiary (united states) or whatever.

If we do it *that* way, we could end up with some very neat articles that look very generally at important ideas in the common law, but that point to the sometimes very different development in later jurisdictions. At the moment the articles are mostly US POV with footnotes that "things aren't always the same elsewhere".

I think that might be easier for a general reader – since they can understand what the general problem of (say) privity of contract is, but then go on to read about the jurisdiction they want. Articles within a jurisdiction can point to each other consistently.

To do this properly will need a lot of active cooperation between people from different parts of the common law world. I am willing to give a lot of help on English law and also the ancient history of the common law (which is an area of expertise I have).

It is worth pointing out that some of the problems are created by lawyers who are no longer aware of the history of the doctrines they are writing about. For example the article on Leasehold estate conflates (in its history section) the notion of tenure with that of landlord and tenant. Historically they were quite different, but in the US where (I assume) there is no longer any tenure (and probably hasn't been any of interest for some time) the distinction is not so apparrent.

I look forward to getting this project going. Any other takers? Francis Davey 1 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

  • I am absolutely willing to work to make the articles less U.S.-centric, as I am aware of my limitations, having only learned the U.S. take on the various doctrine. For an article such as third party beneficiary, I think the article can remain under its current title if the history of the U.S./UK division is explained up front, then common elements are discussed, and particular differences are noted at the end. (We should also look for differences in Australian law, and in other sizable common law systems). I'd like to see each topic organized like a good law-course outline, starting, for example, with a broad article on contracts that generally describes the area, which points to more detailed articles on "Contract formation", "Contract terms", "Excuses for nonperformance of a contract", etc., each of which in turn points to articles on specific doctrines, e.g., "Offer", "Parol evidence", "Frustration of purpose". I do think contract law is the best place to start! Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 1, 2005 12:51 (UTC)
  • It sounds like we are all of the same mind here. There is a clear problem in distinguishing between general legal doctrine and country-specific variations of law. It tends to be that either an article will treat a single countries' POV as the general rule to all common law or else an article will wrongly intermix conflicting rules from different countries resulting in something that is not very easy to understand (see Estoppel for example). This is forgivable since none of us are experts on all jurisdictions of common law. The approach suggested by Francis Davey makes sense: Start with the most country-neutral (or maybe just the most popular) meaning of the doctrine and then explain in separate sections (or separate articles) the subleties and case law that each country has. I think what might prove to be tricky will be creating a country-neutral taxonomy of law. Each country has an (often strict) ordering of categories that will sometimes confict with the others. Contracts is as good a place to start as any. I think the ordering suggested by DBAbramson sounds reasonable. All the best. PullUpYourSocks 1 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
  • I agree that Contract is a good place to start - provided its understood that we call it the "law of contract" 8-). There seems to be a strange plural v singular contrast between US and England, for example we have a law of tort (not torts); a court of appeal (not appeals). Maybe its because the US has lots of states and feels its plurality more keenly.

More seriously, what would help me is to be clear what is US material, then I can abstract the bits I know are more general, and mark US and England+Wales specific differences.

I don't think it will hurt if we assume a common law background for most of the articles, since strictly speaking related concepts in (say) French law are quite different and the terminology is different. Things like privity, consideration, frustration and so on are really common law ideas, even though they represent common questions in how to deal with contract law which have been solved in other places in different ways. There could be a very general article on the law of contract that crosses all jurisdictions and gives a birds eye view of the subject, but we can start by writing what we know about common law.

I'll try rewriting the 3rd party article as an example if I get some time later today (distracted by live8) and see where that takes us. Francis Davey 2 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

    • How about calling them "contract law", "tort law", "property law", etc? I think those will be understood in every jurisdiction. I'm also very keen to see broad linking structures, particularly sidebar templates for each area of law such as those found in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. -- BD2412 talk July 2, 2005 15:36 (UTC)
      • Those titles sound fine so long as the naming remains consistent. E.g. "<blank> law" rather than "law of <blank(s)>". However there may be some exceptions with the odd areas of law such as "Law of the Sea" which I don't think is ever called "Sea law" anywhere. update: I just read the Admiralty law article, maybe that wasn't the best example PullUpYourSocks 2 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)
        • I started gathering article titles for templates a while ago - I'll progress on them after the bar! -- BD2412 talk July 2, 2005 20:03 (UTC)
          • What do you think about areas such as Constitutional law or Administrative law? These might be considered core common law areas as well – Good luck on the bar. PullUpYourSocks 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
            • Definitely important areas of law, and definitely in need of a consistency overhaul, but not really part of the common law as they do not derive from the ancient court-made law of England. There is a family of U.S. law that is dependant on the specific language of the U.S. Constitution, as supplemented by federal statutes - including administrative law, civil rights law, criminal procedure, tax law, and antitrust law. Our first priority should be to clean up the ancient disciplines of the common law, as they are both more widespread and more fundamental. -- BD2412 talk July 4, 2005 23:34 (UTC)
            • I quite agree. Constitutional law has developed so differently in England and the U.S. that there's not much common ground. Australia has closer links (as do many other former Commonwealth countries) and some of the jurisprudence in the Commonwealth has been cited as having persuasive force here on constitutional matters. Administrative law *might* be a better candidate, and its not quite so detached, but its been developed so much here that there isn't likely to be much that can sensibly be said. I am aware that the U.S. has something called "certiorari" but its probably nothing like the quashing order, though I may be wrong. Francis Davey 5 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Art Laws

I probably did a poor job on Visual Artists Rights Act. Anyone care to fix it up. I'm an artist, not a lawyer. :)

This might be a good place to mention what other laws previously and now apply to artists. Perhaps link to similar laws in other countries. There's a lot of confusion on the web where images now pass freely. --Sketchee July 2, 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Yeah, I know there was no legal term as "art laws" that was just the topic for the header. The wordy text of "laws previously and now apply to artist" should definitely have been the header instead. =) --Sketchee July 2, 2005 18:46 (UTC)

Fan fiction

Hello! I've been working a lot lately on the fan fiction article. Unfortunately, it still suffers from a lack of sources and cites. While I will probably (when I finally get enough time free to do a proper search) be able to find sources for theories on the origins/exact definition of the term/genre, terminolgoy, etc., I honestly think that I suck at the kind of stuff necessary to writer a proper Legal Issues section.

Frequent mention is usually made to the Berne Convention, for instance, amongst fan fiction readers and writers but nobody ever seems to explain how the heck it connects to fan fiction very well, even in this article and I do not know enough about it or law in general to explain it myself; many times vague references are made to U.S., European or Asian copyright conflicts, but many times, especially with non-U.S. cases, these are barely even a reference, and almost always have no citation whatsoever.

In short, since "fan fiction" usually refers to unauthorized dervitive works, what we need are lawyers knowledgeable in copyright law, preferably international as well as U.S. law, to go in there, beat the section into submission, force it to behave and add a few of the conspicously absent citations.

Pretty please? Runa27 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Statutory enactments of the United States

It would be nice to have a standardized, templated set of articles on named acts of Congress: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Clean Water Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Sarbanes-Oxley Act, etc. A few of these exist already as stubs but could use some standardization and expansion. Thoughts? --Saucy Intruder 5 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)

Separate history articles?

Should we have separate articles on the history of these areas of law? E.g. Contract law and History of contract law? -- BD2412 talk July 5, 2005 23:11 (UTC)

I think history articles would be great. Probably the most interesting angle to cover would be the evolution of the interpretive regimes. For example in contract law in the UK, there is the evolution from a regime of "strict construction" to the later incorporation of issues of "business efficacy" like in The Moorcock (which might be similar to Wood v. Lucy Lady Duff Gordon in the US), not to mention the many "consumer protection" cases - where the court looks out of the little guy - like in Carlill v. Carbolic and so many of the Lord Denning cases. I think it would only be a matter of doing the leg work to get the facts right. - PullUpYourSocks 5 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Template work begun

Contract

I made a template for contract law - Template:Contract law - which I've put in the articles named on it. It needs much work. I like the color scheme, but it clearly needs much expansion and refinement in terms of content. Any opinions? -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 22:52 (UTC)

  • Nice work. I like the way it's turning out. My main comments would be to suggest to add Mistake and Misrepresentation to the excuses for non-performance section (I might just add it myself if no-one minds). Those are both major areas worth putting on the template. As well, I'd suggest removing mirror image rule since I suspect that it's only an american doctrine. I've heard *of* it but it has never been a component in contract law that I've studied. I was checked out Chitty on Contracts and Cheshire and Fifoot on Contracts (both major english contract texts) and there was no mention of this rule. There may also be an issue with Third party beneficiaries, this seems to be essentially the same as privity of contract. As an aside, I noticed many texts have large sections on "Intention to form legal relations", "Capacity", "Unconscionability", "Public Policy", "Quasi-Contract, and "Contractual terms". They are not always consistent so they may or may not be worth adding. PullUpYourSocks 8 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
    • The mirror-image rule is really just a way of saying that there must be an offer, and an acceptance of the offer (agreeing to all terms, as a variation in terms would be a counter-offer) - but in the U.S., under the Uniform Commercial Code, contracts between merchants can be made where the offer and acceptance do not match. There is, instead, a complicated formula to determine which set of terms actually comprise the contract. -- BD2412 talk 15:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, on your second point, it does seem that there is a lot of overlap between Third party beneficiaries and privity of contract. I think the rule, as I've laid it out in the "Third party beneficiaries" article, is probably simply the American rule as to privity. -- BD2412 talk 16:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tort

Property

  • POV problems I've just read Easement and the description of an easement is a very long way from the kind of easements that I am used to and deal with. I suspect the article is straight US law and nothing else. Can someone help me sort it out. I've put something on the discussion page. In particular are we (in England) unusual in having no public easements (public rights of way being quite different) or is it a US development? Are there easements other than easements of way in the US (eg of fencing)? Francis Davey 20:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Property is begun: Template:Property law. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 14:36 (UTC)
    • Property definitely needs bailment and licence. Maybe Nemo dat. I think "convenants running with the land" might be a bit an awkward title. I think it might work better as a component of a larger "convenant" (or Restrictive covenant?) article. Afterall the name of the game is usually to figure out whether your convenant "runs" or not. Also, what are you're thoughts on "Intellectual property" or "personality property"? Lastly, isn't "waste" just a subcategory of leaseholds? PullUpYourSocks 8 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
      • I agree, there is lots to be plugged into property. My concern about Restrictive covenants is that if they don't run with the land, then they're nothing more than contracts, and don't belong with property at all (but if the restrictive covenant article has a strong focus on the "running with the land" element, that's okay with me. Waste, however is definitely a concept all its own (like fixtures) because it applies to both leasehold estates and life estates. Besides, it's a broad enough topic to merit its own article - I've just covered what I know of it, without even citing any cases, or attempting to broach non-U.S. law! Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 03:21 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I do see your point regarding convenants, I'm not sure which fits best. It would be good to get some other input on it. PullUpYourSocks 8 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)
      • Several points. First, in English law at least, the benefit of positive as well as negative covenants can run with the land. There is thus a species of covenant peculiar to land, that is not merely a restrictive covenant. An article on land obligations might be a little too abstract though. Second point: restrictive covenants (and that exact phrase is used) are a part of employment law. Disambiguation at the very least. A larger article covenant is probably too general to say something useful. Francis Davey 9 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
    • I think Torrens title and Mortgage should likely be added to the template, but I wanted to get some input on what heading they should be under. PullUpYourSocks 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
      • We need a new heading on conveyencing - and an article on recording statutes! -- BD2412 talk 22:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Criminal Law

  • Next up: Template:Criminal law. -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 13:28 (UTC)
    • Does american criminal law distinguish criminal defences as excuses or justifications? Also, what is the criteria for the types of offences that should be included on the list? I could imagine that the list could get quite big. PullUpYourSocks 02:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I think there is a distinction between excuse and justification in American law, but it's rather a formality, and does not affect the time or manner of presentation of the defense. As to what crimes should be included, I have no qualms about the list growing lengthy (see Islam for a massive sidebar, by comparison) - but I'd like to hold it to the classic, big common law crimes that are already there. If anything major is missing (e.g. kidnapping, as I've just noticed) it should be added. I'm also concerned with how we should categorize things that rightly belong on more than one sidebar (and which sidebar should go on the page) - for example, self defense is both a defense to tort and a defense to crime, and it's listed on both, but it looks bad to have both sidebars on the self defense page (I tried it - not good). I'm actually thinking of doing a seperate template for common defenses to torts and crimes. -- BD2412 talk 16:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed Police caution was not yet in any category, so I was looking for something related to Criminal Law, and Law Enforcement. If I figure it out, I will fix the article. User:AlMac|(talk) 11:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured out how to work Search for Category, and put in the best I could find. User:AlMac|(talk) 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

Wills & Trusts

  • Just to throw something into the mix, I am not sure 'Wills and Trusts' could or should be considered to be a fundamental top level area of law in its own right, certainly not in England & Wales. I would consider them to be subdivisions of a more general area, namely Equity. That raises a question as to whether Equity is a subdivision of Common Law or not (historically it is not, but for reference purposes it is a doctrine of laws follwed in the main by Common Law jurisdictions), but I would argue the category should be Equity, which would have sub-catgerories of Wills, Trusts (which in England & Wales is a large body of law much of which has nothing to do with wills), Estoppel, Fiduciary Duty and Remedies. --Necessaryx 12:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how TnE (Trust & Estates) is equitable, seems pretty much straight up "law". I would definitely not consider the Statute of Wills--I do believe that that's an import from across the pond--a doctrine in Equity (seems to be the converse). It's also definitely a separate and distinct area of law with its own doctrines and, sometimes, its own language. By the way, there is an Equity article and an Equity category. mmmbeerT / C / ? 13:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The entire concept of trusts and wills arose from the courts of equity. The Common Law eventually grew to become very form based - indeed arguably it still is - and that caused problems. For example, Mr B is getting elderley and assigns his property to Mr D, on promise that Mr B can remain in the property and once he has died, Mr D agrees to give the property to Mr F. Unfortunately, Mr D fails to re-convey the property after Mr B's death. The courts of common law refused to recognise the instrument as being one giving Mr F standing to bring a claim. The courts of equity did. They considered that Mr D, although the legal owner, was not the beneficial owner. Mr D was a 'trustee' and Mr F the 'beneficiary'. This is the origin of wills, trusts and the other related doctrines. Again you are absolutely right that subsequent to the development of the concept, various statutes have ammended things, such as in England and Wales the Wills Act 1837. As a result wills has changed considerably, which is why i would consider it a sub-set of the general law of equity, from which it is derived.
I appreciate that the pages are on there, but i was making a suggestion as to how the information could be rationalised and ordered as part of this project. Necessaryx 15:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This may be U.S.-centric (really I don't know) but Wills & Trusts constitutes a discreet doctrine here - and there's certainly enough to fill the template as it stands. bd2412 T 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Family law

  • Template:Family law. Not so much of a common-law subject, so I didn't put the "common law" line in it, but worth having. -- BD2412 talk 03:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Civil Procedure

That's nice work. I would suggest, however, to either make the template country-specific by calling it something like "US Civil Procedure" or else generalize it to accomodate civil procedure for other countries. I not sure which would be the best option. Any thoughts? --PullUpYourSocks 23:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I made a U.S. federal civil procedure template some time ago, but it is limited to federal court doctrines. They should fit together well, tho. -- BD2412 talk 23:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I tried, somewhat, to make it cover simply the larger civpro topics. I relegated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to a sublink and the other topics the chronological order. Mmmbeer 00:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Other templates

Please list below other templates (existing or newly-created) that could be of use in this project. I'll point to two to start us off:

For example:

Part of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]] is codified at {{UnitedStatesCode|47|251}} through {{UnitedStatesCodeSec|47|260}}.

produces:

Part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 251 through § 260.

--Russ Blau (talk) 18:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Patent template

You can link to the USPTO's US patent listing by using: Template:US patent as follows for patent number 5123456:

{{US patent|5123456}} --Mmmbeer 00:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

US. Code of Federal Regulations

This probably exists somewhere, but I created a CFR template to link directly to the current US Regulations by title and section (section is actually in part.section format). It works like this: {{CodeFederalRegulations|20|404.1}}

And returns the following: 20 C.F.R. §404.1

There's probably a way to link directly to the GPO Access website... like if we did Title|Part|Section but that might be a bit more tedious. Mmmbeer 23:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have started a general Law and Legal Systems template. It could use revision, especially the addition of non-U.S. law. (I have added this to the main page - hope that's ok!)Chart123 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Constitutional Law template

I have started a U.S. Constitutional Law template. It could use revision, especially the addition of "famous cases." (I have added this to the main page - hope that's ok!) Chart123 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that there's already an extensive US Constitution template. This fits like a big box on the bottom of a page, rather than as a small side box.
My question is which one is preferable. I very much like the idea of a general "Law" template to link major legal topics up and create a web of law pages. So adding the already extensive template to the bottom of con law pages would make the whole thing a little unwieldy. Then again, the template is quite good and comprehensive. Thoughts? Chart123 21:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I will attempt work on this, and would appreciate suggestions. Chart123 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup submission?

Would it be considered useful by yon members of WikiProject Law for me(and others who may happen by) to list law-related articles needing work with you all? Just to start off, Legal research is a very nice essay, but seriously needs tone cleanup (like moving the inline external links to the end). Would having such articles listed here be useful to you? Thanks for all the work you do. JesseW 07:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

  • It certainly does need it - I think it would help to have articles needing cleanup listed, but I hope to fix up the substantive articles (e.g. Tort law, Wills) before reaching peripheral matters such as legal research. We will undoubtedly get to this one at some point, though. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 13:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


Wikiportal

Did anyone notice that there was a law wikiportal? Not me, until now. Any thoughts on how this project can play a role in it? (Unsigned by PullUpYourSocks ;)

Hmm, maybe te first port of call is to invite them to play and discuss it together. The portal is quote recent (25 June), so maybe SirJimmy, its creator, doesn't realise we exist? An An 23:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm very excited that such a thing exists! -- BD2412 talk 20:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've copied this from the Category:Law discussion page, it doesn't sound like that bad an idea:

I have seen the main categories and I think that the result of their "merging" with their respective Wikiportals is excellent. Since there is a Law Wikiportal, don't you think that it would be good to put it here? --Bill the Greek 12:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

-- PullUpYourSocks 20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Subsidy is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you are interested in contributing, you can vote for it.--Fenice 13:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

U.S. federal legislation infobox

I created an infobox template for U.S. federal legislation, at Template:Infobox_U.S._legislation. For an example of how this looks in practice, see User:Saucy_Intruder/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act. Any comments? --Saucy Intruder 20:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow. I like it. I take it all the info needed to fill the box is available through Thomas? Also, how about throwing in an image at the top (maybe the Congressional seal, or an image of a pen signing a bill, if we have one). -- BD2412 talk 21:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thomas is the major source, but the parent/child links - i.e. acts that the subject act amends and acts that amend the subject act - require some additional research. (For example, in the DMCA illustration, the Copyright Act of 1976 is listed as a predecessor. The Copyright Act infobox would reciprocate in the "Major amendments" section.) As far as the image goes, it takes two to tango... branches of government, that is. (And probably three; I'd want to eventually add links to major SCOTUS or circuit court cases interpreting the act). So I'm at a loss for a good image. --Saucy Intruder 21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Law's Own version of an Improvement Drive

I've been busy creating a whole bunch of entries for missing legal articles, but as I've been snooping around, there are a number of really bad--and I mean really bad--or poorly written existing articles. Some perhaps have never even received a cursory look by a contributor with legal skills.

I mention this because of my ongoing work on Jury nullification. The article was somewhere between POV and a mess. It was (and somewhat still is as I haven't touched history or case law) sloppy, disorganized, and heavily influenced by pro-nullification advocacy groups. So I started a top-down rewrite.

I realize there aren't many of us in this group, but we could improve the quality of important, existing articles by all focusing each week, or every other week, on one, in addition to other things that we're contributing. It can be informal, like by simply by adding an article to a list.

We can also use it to draw attention to law articles in real need of attention by someone with legal experience. Mmmbeer 13:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • We can start by tracking down legal articles and listing those that are really bad on the project page, then collectively knocking them out one at a time. -- BD2412 talk 13:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you have not already done so, I suggest

Science pearls

Hello, Please notice this project. I hope that a new List of publications in law will be created and adopted by the lawproject. Thanks,APH 06:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

My definition to "publication" is very liberal ;-). I think that your definition to publication is the suitable one for law. APH 14:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Civil Law

I've made a request to the CFD to change the name of the category "civil law" into something that better deliniates the type of "civil law" being referred to (eg. "civil law (private law)" or "civil law (common law)"). I don't think it's fair to treat the common law-type of "civil law" as having any sort of precedence - hence no disambiguating bracket - over the civilian system, which is far more prevailent in the rest of the world. Whether you'll agree or not, I hope that you'll make some comments on the CFD page. Thanks --PullUpYourSocks 19:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, the request has been revoked. I am little disappointed, actually. Especially, as the "no" voters either to gave no reason or they showed signs of a lack of understanding of the topic. One mentioned that "civil law" meant "non-criminal law", and another seemed to not even be aware of the existence, let alone vast prevailance, of the civil law system. Rather than challenge it again, I think it will be necessary to rewrite the civil law article in order to better reflect the distinction between the two types of "civil law", so that it may be easier to convince non-law people sometime in the future. – PullUpYourSocks 03:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, I think. It might also be worth dropping a note to legally-minded Wikipedians next time around, so we can vote and inform the ignorant. Ambi 14:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I should have. I thought it would be a no-brainer, so I didn't make much of an effort to argue my case or try to find support. The mistake was mine. --PullUpYourSocks 22:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law/Archive_1&oldid=1077603275"