Talk:Jurist

Stub?
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)

Inacurate information?
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

islamic law??
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)

American English?
"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)


 * Yes I'm very dubious about this statement too, I'm not sure it's particularly helpful. This article also doesn't cite any references so it seems this is just the opinion of whoever wrote the text. Without references I'm inclined to rewrite this to simply state the facts. Some examples of its useage would be good.Gymnophoria (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The definition in the intro is contradicted by two statements in the next section that in N America the word is usually used only for judges, or for eminent judges and academics. I have tagged the article as contradictory, and disputed the same definition used at Category:Jurists by nationality. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Roman law (historical)?
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)

Expert needed
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)


 * Indeed. I am looking for two articles on this Wikipedia: 1/ about the legal profession in general (incl. lawyers and judges and scholars), 2/ about law scholars, university professors, people who do jurisprudence. Which of them is this (supposed to be)? Littledogboy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Better? Littledogboy (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of section on Islamic use of "jurist"
Anon editor has removed from this article a section on Islamic use of the word "jurist", 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:
 * Among these Islamic scholars is the 14th-century Somali theologian and jurist Uthman bin Ali Zayla'i of Zeila, who wrote the single most authoritative text on the Hanafi school of Islam…

I therefore propose that the section should be reinstated. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes hello friend, although your intentions seem to be good, you may not realize that you are actually harming Wikipedia by lowering the quality of content and wasting the time of editors who could be doing other things. There are many reasons why that section was rightfully removed, and why more removals are sure to come. Thanks for your understanding. 75.82.55.192 (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then, list and discuss these alleged reasons. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason it was removed was because it's false information. You also conveniently ignored the section below this one which actually does give reason for one of the related edits you are reverting. There are two main edits you just reverted in one fell swoop without discussing both of them here. But the particular reason why Islamic people were removed was because religion and law are two entirely different subjects. Islam is a religion, and is definitely not law. This is a religious matter, not a legal one. There is a profound relation between the so called jurisprudence done by these Muslims and their guidance under religious values. More so than any other organization I can think of at this moment. And Islam is also particularly notable because not much has changed since medieval times, and I honestly don't mean this as an insult, but rather as historical fact, and to also highlight the stark contrast in true legal nature. But on top of all of this, there is nothing which proves these people in question were jurists. They are not really a part of the history which has contributed to modern law. The individual Wikipedia articles of the people who were removed does mention most of them as being a jurist, but there is literally nothing to back this up within those articles. I did the research and there is not a single credible source which mentions anything of actual jurisprudence. Yes, there is a lot of cleaning up which needs to be done here, and you are really trying to be difficult just for the sake of your own agenda, which actually is disruptive behavior. I recognize there is genuine hatred for Muslims here on Wikipedia, but really, lets not get carried away between what is accurate information and what is combating Islamiphobia. Thanks. 75.82.55.192 (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also notice how men such as Plato, Tribonian, Cicero and Papiniano are neither tools of royal court nor defined by their religion. They were free men from a time where religion played a different type of role in peoples lives, they were also a part of a republic, something which true law is a product of, and order. The actual law which helps guide the modern world today was totally founded outside of religion. And these people such as Plato and Papiniano on this article here are placed next to Chanakaya, who was not religious but a tool of royal court. But besides this Chanakya didn't really do anything which can be considered as participating in realistic jurisprudence. His photo really does look out of place. Monarchy, Christianity and Islam are really powers of the dark ages, of the age when monarchy came to be the dominant power, after the fall of the republic, and with monarchy came the modern way of religions we know today, which are products of monarchy, they certainly have evolved under total control of monarchy, which again are things of the dark ages that really have no value here. But also notice how later-period Islamic people were kept on the list, because they are within an age where Jurisprudence can actually be defined. Thank you for wasting my time. 75.82.55.192 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 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)


 * Reading comprehension? I already told you they are no sources which describe these people as Jurists. Their Wikipedia articles may list them as being a jurist, but there is literally nothing to back this up within those articles. I would also like to note that I have full access to libgen. Do you know what libgen is? Many of the sources are actually quoted out of context too, which is interesting because someone is really making an effort to lie about the importance of these Muslims. And you are also not replying to any of the reasons I gave you, which you indeed asked for. You are ignoring logic and stating mere technical excuses which I already addressed before you even replied. You honestly need to do better.75.82.55.192 (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

please take your time 75.82.55.192 (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here, I will make this simple for you. Here is a list of valid reasons which contest your decision to undo my removal of Sharia Law and some Muslim Scholars. Please respond to them rather than attempt to make your own technical excuses for why you think your decision should stand.
 * Sharia Law is a religious subject, not a legal subject.
 * There are many religions with their own laws-- these are actually called beliefs, and never considered to be legal subject. Why do you, or anyone who is Muslim demand special treatment here?
 * There is a specific history which modern day law follows, there is a basic established legal system which most of the world abides by, and this legal system carries it's own very specific history, totally unrelated to Islam
 * Jurist has a specific definition of Jurisprudence already defined here in this article. And none of the things I removed had real sources which proved those people were involved with Jurisprudence. The sources for some of these scholars on their respective articles also seem as if they were purposely kept vague, and some are from textbooks which are not available online through public access. And the others mention nothing of Jurisprudence and some of them are actually misquoted. I would assume on purpose. Please explain why.


 * Thank you for explaining your reasons at last. These do not stand up to examination. Replying to the above points in turn:
 * Sharia Law is self-evidently both a religious subject and a legal subject.
 * Islamic jurists deserve coverage on the page "jurist" because the word "jurist" is used in reliable sources to describe them. Others e.g. Christian canon lawyers would belong here too if the word is likewise used of them.
 * Which legal system are you referring to that "most of the world" abides by? Even in Europe, countries are divided between those with a foundation of Roman law or common law. Islamic law is the foundation in some other countries. Where the national systems (built on these different foundations) have to interact, the subject of private international law arises to handle the conflicts between them.
 * As for the biographies: if you want people to know what "libgen" you are talking about, then be helpful and link to the article Libgen. Although you are fortunate to have access to such a resource, it is evidently not as exhaustive as you think, because there are other sources that refer to some of the deleted individuals as jurists, e.g. Avicenna's biography at the University of St Andrews. I have not checked  thoroughly, and for Chanakya, Al-Farabi and Al-Biruni, you may be right; perhaps the biography articles used the word "jurist" in the broader sense of scholar/philosopher-statesmen whose work included jurisprudence. In that case, if you have investigated thoroughly, I would have no objection to you removing the word from their biographies, nor their portraits from this article. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again you are cherrypicking certain things and ignoring other key elements of logic. I honestly believe you have a specific agenda in mind here.


 * No, Sharia law is not something which is both legal and religious. It is entirely within the scope of religion, and nowhere else.
 * There are many religions with their own laws-- these are actually called beliefs, and never considered to be legal subject. Once again why do you, or anyone who is Muslim demand special treatment here?
 * Yes, I was going to correct the statement I made about the system in which most of the world abides by. But to reiterate-- the 'legal system' here is any sense of decision being carried out by a person or institution, with the purpose of accurate due process, fairness and order. These are also products of logic. The legal system is basically anything which is not medieval street justice. And this specific system actually does have a very specific history, none of which is related to Sharia Law or Islam. I honestly don't intend to sound harsh, please excuse me, but religion is something which really does not belong anywhere within the legal field. And you are really asking for an explanation and I am certainly giving it to you.
 * Libgen actually is quite exhaustive, what exactly are you talking about here? The wikipedia article on libgen is incomplete and does not accurately describe what libgen is. It provides much more than mere scientific research.
 * I am familiar with Avicenna, and he was definitely not a jurist
 * I understand the intention of some people who want to highlight the golden age of Islam and bring a sort of emphasis to the subject. I understand the purpose of this, I really do, but I also think it's going a little beyond of what is the actual truth.

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)

Where is the line drawn between someone who is a tool of royal court and someone who is actually involved with jurisprudence?
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)
 * See my reply above about sources. Wikipedia is based on those, not on opinions. – Fayenatic  L ondon 00:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And who is making an opinion here? Not I. 75.82.55.192 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Navbox
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)
 * I would assume that it doesn't need to be "bidirectional" to be relevant. Also would like to suggest using a better term to describe this matter, as "bidirectional" is extremely primitive and vague. The portal seems to provide substance and is doing no harm. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How is the term "primitive" (if were to look past how problematic the term "primitive" is)? In any case, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is clear in this matter, and if you feel otherwise, that would be a discussion for WT:CLN. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The term is vague to say the least. And wp:bidirectional hardly makes any ground statements, if any at all. But feel free to delete this useful information as you see fit. I personally think its useful. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Why have Arabs, Persian and Indian jurists' images been removed?
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)

Add Gratian to notable jurists section
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)
 * Based on this page's edit history, people don't seem to be abiding by this supposed injunction, so I went ahead and added it, as the page does not feature a prominent canonist qua canonical jurist (it features prominent canonists qua scholars of international law, but that's different). The add is completely reasonable as it is undisputed within canonical history that he is one of the most notable and influential canonical jurists of all time. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 15:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Abul ala maududi.jpg

Suggestions please for related term
I need a word with similar meaning in British English at Talk:Internal Market Bill 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)