Talk:Lists of law topics

This page suffers a lack of stylistic consistency in regard to the question of which words should be capitalized. Of course, lawyers more frequently than most people like to put capital letters at the beginnings of some words either for subliminal effect or because the style conventions prevailing in that field differ from those of what is usually considered good English. But perhaps some deliberately chosen style convention ought to prevail here. Michael Hardy 21:46 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the article titled public domain, could benefit from the attention of copyright lawyers, if any are among Wikipedians. 131.183.81.100 22:59 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this list include all pages that deal with any kind of law, including religious law, since there is a criminal justice topics and public international law topics page they should be the only exceptions, no? Alex756 23:58 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Should all the legal topics be on this page including criminal justice topics as they are already listed on the criminal justice topic page? Alex756

I don't think this list should include many items from List of basic criminal justice topics. --Ellmist Saturday, May 17th, 02003

I prefer using the Wikipedia-style capitalisation already used in article names.

I favour making this list inclusive for now, as, hopefully, all topics will be contained eventually in sub-lists (e.g. List of electoral law topics) and retaining a larger list allows easier use of Recent changes. We already have the start of Law basic topics which is part of the series of Basic topics index articles.

As this article grows (and it recently gone above 32KB), we could progressively: move certain groups of topics from the alpabetical list (already done for lists, Acts and people, could also do this for specific declarations, edicts, constitutions and conventions, and for legal texts and for organisations, courts and tribunals), move the lists section to Lists of legal topics, break up the alphabet into more separate pages, then/or give up and delete it.

-- Zigger 00:57, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Do we need a List of illegal topics as well? — JIP | Talk 11:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peer

I was doing disambiaguation for Peer and came upon this page. I am not sure to what meaning of the word "peer" this should refer. Could someone with more expertise in this field please check this and do the disambiguation? JoaoRicardo 01:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not sure it belongs here. There's a separate listing for Jury of one's peers, though still a red link. The listing for "Peer" might be replaced by a piped link to that nonexistent article. The other obvious possibility is that peerage in the sense of nobility was deemed to be a legal topic. I'm not knowledgeable in peerage issues but that seems dubious to me. Laws would determine who inherited a particular title, but that doesn't mean that anything people could litigate about belongs on the list of legal topics. Do editors knowledgeable about the nobility think that meaning belongs here? If so, should the link be to peerage or to nobility? If there's no reason to list it at all, I'll link "Peer" on this list to Jury of one's peers, and throw together a stub just so no one thinks "Peer" is a red link. JamesMLane 07:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Coding

The coding of this list used to be line by line:

[[topic 1]] --

[[topic 2]] --

[[topic 3]] --

[[topic 4]] --

...

Now it looks like spaghetti to me:

[[topic 1]] -- [[topic 2]] -- [[topic 3]] -- [[topic 4]] -- ...

Can we restore the original format? -- Toytoy 07:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree - having one entry per line is far more readable. Since the page will then inevitably get too long, split it up alphabetically. Enochlau 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

I've always found masses of text on the screen hard to read and especially so for lengthy pages with masses of text. I was wondering about what others think about formatting it in a way similar to List of physics topics, that is, divided into alphabetical sections in a vertical format. Enochlau 14:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation

I'm correcting contractor disambiguation at the moment. the entry in this list simply moves to the disambiguation page, which unhelpfully also contains a definition. For the moment I will change the list to point to "contract" (see my notes on the talk page there too). It does not strike me as being too much of an intellectual leap to make that a "contractor" would be "one who contracts". Feel free to revert if you think I've confused the issue. LeeG 14:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another one. element links to the disambiguation page too - I have no idea what the legal term "element" means! Can someone correct it to the right page, or delete the linkif it is just aiming for a definition. LeeG 10:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it is either, but I linked to a page yet to be made element (law), so some one who knows can write about it or delete it. GB 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that it refers to the specific requirements that need to be demonstrated to show that a tort or crime has been committed. For example, the elements of the tort of negligence, as traditionally expressed are: 1) a duty of care by the defendant; 2) the defendant breached that duty; 3) harm suffered by the plaintiff; and 4) the harm suffered was proximately caused by the breach.

A criminal example: the crime of burglary, at common law, consisted of breaking and entering into a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a felony therein; so it consists of the following elements: 1) breaking and entering; 2) a dwelling; 3) at night; 4) with intent to commit a theft or felony therein. So if a prosecutor showed that someone broke into a house during the day to steal stuff, that's not a burglary (it would be another crime of theft). Or if the prosecutor showed that someone broke into a store at night to steal stuff, that would also not be a burglary. (Note: don't go doing any of these based on this entry; that's the description of burglary under ye olde common law, but most modern jurisdictions have dropped both the "at night" and "dwelling" elements.

I don't see this "elements" as really being worth a wikipedia entry.Terry Carroll 00:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic?

I'm new here, and I've got to say: great page BUT: SELF REFERENTIAL. Can't the intro be made more encyclopedic? AndyJones 22:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Redirect to Wiktionary

I ran across the term Drawee on the page Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years research lead to a finding the page had been built and deleted for cause Talk:Drawee. Some research on Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary lead to solving the problem with a Wikipedia:Soft redirect. So I would suggest that if you going write a dictionary entry, write it (or find it) on (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Main_Page) then do a Wikipedia:Soft redirect. To do a soft redirect open the window to edit a new article (from a red link) type {{wi}} and click "save page", your done. Jeepday 04:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious topics

Why are there so many religious topics on this page? In secular western societies, religious law & practice are considered separate from public law. --Eastlaw 07:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this all started. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia. But I'll take some educated guess, based on history and my experience as an attorney and law professor. There is some historical overlap. Canon law is a predecessor of Criminal law. The etymology of the word Bar, as in passing the bar, refers to passing the Sanctuary bar used in churches and synangogues, especially those on the Basilica plan. Trials took place in churches, which were then multi-purpose community centers; much as an Oratory may still be used. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. has been quoted as saying, "Law is history, not logic." Just because we've had separation of church and state in the 20th Century, does not erase the artifacts of 1,700 years of history, when such strict separation did not exist. Lawyers change habits slowly. Bearian 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bar association article has an incomplete etymology on bar. I'll have to do more searching. Bearian 16:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of course

Which, if any, definition of Course led to its inclusion on this list? Please correct the link or remove it, or add the legal definition to the list on the Course disambiguation page. Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Course" is used in legal, ahem, discourse, but only in conjunction with some other noun, i.e. course of dealing, course of business, course of employment, etc. "Course" alone is not a legal term. Removed.Terry Carroll 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace?

This article strikes me as being a combination of an index of wikipedia's legal topics and a guide for editors. Perhaps it would be appropriate to move it to the Wikipedia: namespace? --Tim4christ17 ^talk 18:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic disambiguation

This page has 367 links to disambiguation pages! Consider using a tool to find and fix these. Rich257 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a good reason for this page to exist. It isn't really a list of legal topics, despite its name. It's a list of legal terms; in some cases, ordinary or not-so-ordinary words or phrases that are sometimes used in law. I mean, come on, "uxor"? This is one of the words pointing to a disambiguation page, because it's not worth making a page for "uxor," which isn't really a topic.

As an alternative to deleting the article, this article could be radically improved by deleting every entry that isn't really a legal topic. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that if it's not worth making an article for an entry here, it probably isn't a "topic" and shouldn't be on the list Terry Carroll 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]