This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jurist article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
IMO, this isn't a stub. Your opinions? Computerjoe 's talk 19:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed- can you remove? I’m on a mobile and can’t figure out how but I’m not using the app so some functions might not work - let me know! NuttMerg ( talk) 19:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
In Europe there are two classes of lawyers, the jurists and what is in many places known as advocates.
In Belgium we use the English term lawyer for everyone who can plea (you have to do a 3 years internship for that). People who have studied law and are not a lawyer because they haven't done their internship are referred to with the general term jurists (but lawyers are part of the jurists too). To speak in Venn diagram's terms: if jurists and lawyers are two concentric circles (or Venn diagrams). Jurists is the outer one and lawyers the inner. The quote implies that jurists excludes lawyers.
In Continental law (as apposed to Anglo-American law) there are no 2 types of lawyers in the sense of barristers and solicitors (in England). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.161.65 ( talk) 14:22, 11 January 2007
sharia common? Muslim world?? the concept of Ulema has little to do with a jurist no?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noserider ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The term is widely used in American English, but in the United Kingdom and many Commonwealth countries it has only historical and specialist usage.
I'm American, and I've never heard the term used. Could it be vice versa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.20.126 ( talk) 07:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to add more confusion to the discussion, in ancient Rome, jurisconsults (iuris consulti) were legal professionals in the sense of men learned in law. They were academics, but their issued legal opinions carried a lot of persuasive weight and were frequently consulted by lawyers and judges.
I believe its a misnomer to equate the term "jurist" with "jurisconsult", the latter should be exclusively reserved for referring to the abovementioned Roman-era individuals. In English, "jurist" is a broad term simply meaning anybody well-versed in or trained in law. Of course in other languages, especially those operating in Civil Law jurisdictions, the term "jurist" may carry other professional connotations as the article has identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.74 ( talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone with an expertise in law, specifically legal terminology, needs to edit this article, which currently has a very confused definition of the term, and contradicts itself on the prominence of the term in different dialects. References, of course, are sorely lacking. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Anon editor 75.82.55.192 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has removed from this article a section on Islamic use of the word "jurist", [1] stating "this is not a cultural event we are discussing" and "there is no reason for specific inclusion of any religion."
The section seemed to me (i) sufficiently well-referenced and (ii) relevant. Other articles link to this page "jurist", intending to refer to the Islamic use of the term. For example, the article Somalia currently includes a link here as follows:
I therefore propose that the section should be reinstated. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The question is whether these people – or the others that you removed, namely Al-Farabi, Al-Biruni and Avicenna – are described as jurists in what Wikipedia calls " reliable sources". You are entitled to your opinions on politics or religion, but please observe WP:NPOV in editing Wikipedia. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
please take your time 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 01:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
There are many more reasons why Sharia law is not considered valid law beyond the scope of religion. The fact I have to sit here and explain all of this is absurd. Simply the word 'Law' placed in front of 'Sharia' does not make it a legal subject. I cannot possibly believe anyone would think otherwise. Wikipedia has really lowered it's standards on the type of content and the actions they are allowing. This article is insulting, which is why I do not hesitate to include my own type of slander, which although is truthful, probably doesn't help my case out. But has anyone taken the time to consider how this article may be insulting to anyone like me who appreciates accurate information? Of course not, and that is not fair. 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 06:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
It's nice that we are able to agree on something, but please, I assure you, all the people I originally removed must remain deleted. 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I also have a source which trumps the source you provided on Avicenna. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Avicenna
The Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the most definite sources for establishing truth online, much better than the source you provided. The source I provided does not mention anything of him being a jurist, it actually mentions nothing of any type of legal work. Because his legal work really was insignificant 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There are some persons who have the label of jurist applied to them with no realistic sense of what a jurist actually is and how we define jurism. It seems that any person from the ancient world of primitive law who was loosely cited or had the slightest involvement with anything, can have their place within this article. It's very hard to label an ancient scholar as a real jurist, because ancient law was extremely primitive, and this is why very few people fit the bill. Only a select few people of the ancient world who are directly involved with real legal history may rightfully be called a jurist. I don't want to make this an issue of race or religion, but really, it seems like some of these other people were thrown up just for the purpose of cultural diversity. I really don't have anything against any other people or culture, but it irritates me to see such inaccurate or false information being touted just for the sake of social justice. This is why people who should not be up here will be removed, then if I feel the need, I will continue going down the line and editing their respective articles to remove the label of jurist applied to them by seemingly eager individuals, or whoever did this. 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 11:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Having been reverted by User:....SandwitchHawk...., I'm bringing the matter to the talk page. I am not on mobile and am aware of what I removed. I removed the navbox as it was not bidirectional (as I indicated) per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. 207.161.217.209 ( talk) 02:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Only westerns are included (apart from ambedcar). Why? It is me the user who made this image section of these influential jurists.-- 79.75.49.248 ( talk) 17:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because it said not to change without discussion. Gratian was the father of canon law and is one of the most influential jurists of the Medieval period. His Decretum (c. 1140s) formed the basis of canon law for almost 8 centuries, and still heavily influences contemporary canon law. He deserves to be on this list. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 14:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I need a word with similar meaning in British English at Talk:Internal Market Bill#Jurist to describe a group that includes a very senior judge and a number of eminent barristers. Any ideas? (there, please). -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jurist article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
IMO, this isn't a stub. Your opinions? Computerjoe 's talk 19:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed- can you remove? I’m on a mobile and can’t figure out how but I’m not using the app so some functions might not work - let me know! NuttMerg ( talk) 19:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
In Europe there are two classes of lawyers, the jurists and what is in many places known as advocates.
In Belgium we use the English term lawyer for everyone who can plea (you have to do a 3 years internship for that). People who have studied law and are not a lawyer because they haven't done their internship are referred to with the general term jurists (but lawyers are part of the jurists too). To speak in Venn diagram's terms: if jurists and lawyers are two concentric circles (or Venn diagrams). Jurists is the outer one and lawyers the inner. The quote implies that jurists excludes lawyers.
In Continental law (as apposed to Anglo-American law) there are no 2 types of lawyers in the sense of barristers and solicitors (in England). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.161.65 ( talk) 14:22, 11 January 2007
sharia common? Muslim world?? the concept of Ulema has little to do with a jurist no?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noserider ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The term is widely used in American English, but in the United Kingdom and many Commonwealth countries it has only historical and specialist usage.
I'm American, and I've never heard the term used. Could it be vice versa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.20.126 ( talk) 07:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to add more confusion to the discussion, in ancient Rome, jurisconsults (iuris consulti) were legal professionals in the sense of men learned in law. They were academics, but their issued legal opinions carried a lot of persuasive weight and were frequently consulted by lawyers and judges.
I believe its a misnomer to equate the term "jurist" with "jurisconsult", the latter should be exclusively reserved for referring to the abovementioned Roman-era individuals. In English, "jurist" is a broad term simply meaning anybody well-versed in or trained in law. Of course in other languages, especially those operating in Civil Law jurisdictions, the term "jurist" may carry other professional connotations as the article has identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.74 ( talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone with an expertise in law, specifically legal terminology, needs to edit this article, which currently has a very confused definition of the term, and contradicts itself on the prominence of the term in different dialects. References, of course, are sorely lacking. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Anon editor 75.82.55.192 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has removed from this article a section on Islamic use of the word "jurist", [1] stating "this is not a cultural event we are discussing" and "there is no reason for specific inclusion of any religion."
The section seemed to me (i) sufficiently well-referenced and (ii) relevant. Other articles link to this page "jurist", intending to refer to the Islamic use of the term. For example, the article Somalia currently includes a link here as follows:
I therefore propose that the section should be reinstated. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The question is whether these people – or the others that you removed, namely Al-Farabi, Al-Biruni and Avicenna – are described as jurists in what Wikipedia calls " reliable sources". You are entitled to your opinions on politics or religion, but please observe WP:NPOV in editing Wikipedia. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
please take your time 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 01:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
There are many more reasons why Sharia law is not considered valid law beyond the scope of religion. The fact I have to sit here and explain all of this is absurd. Simply the word 'Law' placed in front of 'Sharia' does not make it a legal subject. I cannot possibly believe anyone would think otherwise. Wikipedia has really lowered it's standards on the type of content and the actions they are allowing. This article is insulting, which is why I do not hesitate to include my own type of slander, which although is truthful, probably doesn't help my case out. But has anyone taken the time to consider how this article may be insulting to anyone like me who appreciates accurate information? Of course not, and that is not fair. 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 06:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
It's nice that we are able to agree on something, but please, I assure you, all the people I originally removed must remain deleted. 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 19:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I also have a source which trumps the source you provided on Avicenna. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Avicenna
The Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the most definite sources for establishing truth online, much better than the source you provided. The source I provided does not mention anything of him being a jurist, it actually mentions nothing of any type of legal work. Because his legal work really was insignificant 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There are some persons who have the label of jurist applied to them with no realistic sense of what a jurist actually is and how we define jurism. It seems that any person from the ancient world of primitive law who was loosely cited or had the slightest involvement with anything, can have their place within this article. It's very hard to label an ancient scholar as a real jurist, because ancient law was extremely primitive, and this is why very few people fit the bill. Only a select few people of the ancient world who are directly involved with real legal history may rightfully be called a jurist. I don't want to make this an issue of race or religion, but really, it seems like some of these other people were thrown up just for the purpose of cultural diversity. I really don't have anything against any other people or culture, but it irritates me to see such inaccurate or false information being touted just for the sake of social justice. This is why people who should not be up here will be removed, then if I feel the need, I will continue going down the line and editing their respective articles to remove the label of jurist applied to them by seemingly eager individuals, or whoever did this. 75.82.55.192 ( talk) 11:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Having been reverted by User:....SandwitchHawk...., I'm bringing the matter to the talk page. I am not on mobile and am aware of what I removed. I removed the navbox as it was not bidirectional (as I indicated) per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. 207.161.217.209 ( talk) 02:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Only westerns are included (apart from ambedcar). Why? It is me the user who made this image section of these influential jurists.-- 79.75.49.248 ( talk) 17:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because it said not to change without discussion. Gratian was the father of canon law and is one of the most influential jurists of the Medieval period. His Decretum (c. 1140s) formed the basis of canon law for almost 8 centuries, and still heavily influences contemporary canon law. He deserves to be on this list. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 14:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I need a word with similar meaning in British English at Talk:Internal Market Bill#Jurist to describe a group that includes a very senior judge and a number of eminent barristers. Any ideas? (there, please). -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)