Talk:Translating "law" to other European languages

For deletion?!

Come on Zoe, gimme a break. I'm just starting the article. What's the problem with it?! It is not a Wiktionay entry, as you will see. Velho 04:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be deleted since (1) it is not a dictionary entry, (2) it concerns an argument used by (English speaking) legal positivists and their opponents, and (3) it is as relevant an article on language comparison as any other (there is even a category named "language comparison"). Velho 05:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why on Earth this article should be deleted before inserting the AfD tag?! Velho 15:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems a valid, informative and interesting article about a real translation problem in Law. Why would anyone want to delete it? The Ogre 18:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia deletion policy says that the tag must remain until the deletion debate concludes (even if everyone thus far has been voting against deletion), so please don't remove it. The debate is not taking place here, but at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translating "law" to other European languages, so please post your votes/comments there! I also left a message on User:Velho's talk page. Thank you. Blackcats 19:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect

Why is there both a "Translating "law" to other European languages" and a "The translation of "law" to other European languages" page? Merge and redirect? 81.232.72.53 00:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Move article?

What about moving the article to Ius and lex? Blackcats and Neutrality voted for it, and it now seems to me a good idea. If somebody else agrees or nobody says anything within a few days, I'll move and reorganize it, so that the focus will be on legal philosophy issues and the translation problem becomes only one of the sections. Velho 20:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that the post, which I like, is really part of positive law discussions. How about: Positive Law: Linguistic Problems, or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarg2 (talk • contribs)

What do you mean "positive law discussions"? Velho 18:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning to move it to "Ius and lex" someday, with links from "positivism", "law", "natural law" and the like. Velho 18:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principle with renaming it something like Law (ius and lex) . Perhaps look at articles like Logos and agape for style. MPS 17:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

transwiki

maybe to wikibooks (to an appropriate book), to wikiversity (as a lesson), or Wiktionary (as some new? form of content?) --Emesee (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

This article needed an introduction which I added. I think it is logical to, in the introduction, say something about the basic difference between ius and lex. I copied part of the text from the artcile and juxtaposed it nicely.

Here user:the Ogre and here user:Velho deleted my contributions. Citing it was "the absurdest nonsense" and "complete nonsense and delirium".

Now I do not care for petty insults, but I would like you both to be constructive and think of a way to summarize the main difference between ius and lex in the introduction. Because otherwise the article can't be understood quickly by any one who didn't know the difference before. C mon (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you think it's better now. I didn't mean to insult, but only to show some surprise for an introduction that, as far as I see, was a complete contradiction to the rest of the article. Velho (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I´m happy with the current version. C mon (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)