Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translating "law" to other European languages


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Translating "law" to other European languages
Maybe appropriate for Wiktionary, but not for Wikipedia. Why stop here? Let's have thousands of articles, Translating "xxx" to other European languages. And why only European languages? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Translate this. P.S. Original research. Flyboy Will 04:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is more suited to a law review. Daniel Case 07:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Poistettava. This belongs to Wiktionary or a multi-language dictionary, not here. It should be deleted. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 09:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to law at wiktionary. Unless there is some evidence that this is a significant problem/issue -- Astrokey44 |talk 09:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge any relevant content into Legal systems of the world or some such article... Blackcats 09:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. 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)
 * I suppose you guys didn't take the time to read the article... This is an article on (1) language comparison (see the category), not on translation, it has a direct (2) relation to legal translation and (3) it has an obvious relation to the debate between legal positivism and, say, natural law: the thesis that law has no necessary connection to morality fits well the word "law" but is hard to accept if you look at "ius"; so, if legal positivism doesn't want to be a parochial theory, it has to deal with other languages / words that suggest different intuitions. Moreover, there are recent discussions on the matter (see the Further Reading section) and Julie Dickson's articles on line: for instance, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Velho 22:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding Zoe's questions, (1) it is indeed important to have articles on translation problems when the words to be translated are culturally shaped and refer to institutional facts or social constructions: in these cases, language comparison is also a comparison between cultures (since social constructions exist only through language); (2) regarding "law", the first comparison to be made is between English and other European languages, precisely because this case ("law" vs "ius"/"lex") is a strange phenomenon within a common philosophical, religious and otherwise cultural background. Velho 22:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding Flyboy Willy's opinion, this is not original research, because it is all about a translating problem and its consequences to philosophy of law; I'm not going to do anything more than to say what people has said about it. And the translation issue in itself is more or less a "matter of fact".
 * For instance, you could take a look at Michael Roumeliotis' article "On the one right answer" (Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, vol. 87, 2001, pp. 72-96: see p. 74) and see that he uses precisely this argument on the translation of "law".
 * If you read Robert Alexy's argument on the "claim to correctness", you will see that the concept of "ius" (as possibly opposed to "law") is essential to the question whether law has or has not a necessary relation to morality.
 * Are there still some doubts? Please let me know.
 * By the way, could someone please tell me when and how does this debate end? Thank you in advance. Velho 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that one week after the date this article was nominated for deletion an admin will review the votes for and against and decide whether or not to delete. -Seth Mahoney 00:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * About Daveb's vote: isn't it usual to give arguments (reasons, motives, justifications, etc.) in this kind of discussions? Velho 04:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * About Blackcats' vote: this article cannot be merged into Legal systems of the world because the issue around "law" vs "ius"/"lex" concerns mainly philosophy of law, not law itself. The different legal systems or families are individuated by their traditions and their most important "sources of law" (with decisive effects on the legal procedures). Not by their concepts of "law". Velho 02:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize for giving the following ad hominem argument, but it seems to be relevant: I've been reading your user pages and it looks that you don't have the slightest information about law or philosophy of law. So, why are you voting here? Velho 10:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * About Just that guy's vote: he seems not to have read any of the articles ("law" and "translating..."); nor this page. Velho 18:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do me a favour: get to Google and search for "ius and lex" (between high quotes). See how many "encyclopaedic" articles you find. Velho 02:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do not delete. 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)
 * Doesn't "droit" mean right (as in opposite to left)? - Mgm|(talk) 22:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC); almost: la droite is the right-hand side; à la droite means "on the right"; Anyway, the relation between "right" (v. "wrong") and "right" (v. "left") is common to several languages. Velho 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 04:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete OR which appears to add nothing to Law Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if the following happen: More explicit sources (it would be nice to have a side-by-side comparison for the bit on Kant) the current content and add content describing specific arguments used and the wider implications of these positions. -Seth Mahoney 00:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to something better. Looks like a valid topic, bibliography and everything.  --BadSeed 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've thought of renaming it to Ius and lex, but it gets hard to understand... Velho 04:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename per BadSeed's suggestion above. Neutralitytalk 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey! It wasn't BadSeed's suggestion, it was my suggestion!... ;-) Velho 03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.