Talk:Civil law (legal system)

Sudan

Sudan is no longer and Islamic country but a secular one so it should be removed as an example of Islamic states with companies with the likes of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan Nlivataye (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Jus Commune

“Civil law practitioners, however, traditionally refer to their system in a broad sense as jus commune.”

“Jus commune” here is linked to a page explaining how jus commune is another way of saying common law, which this article does a lot of work establishing common and civil law as contrasting methods. 2603:6010:3206:B64:F807:D836:3544:E8A4 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

China civil law? Disruptive IP edits

There are persistent disruptive IP edits (edit warring) removing China as a civil law country. China is a civil law country. Multiple sources say so. IP is removing the claims and sources. Can someone assist? Not sure how to go about this. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We need better sources, but yes. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

History of codifications

It seems to me that the history of codifications favors northern Europe a little too much, as southern Europe lacked them before receiving them from the north. For example, I cite the Constitutions of Melfi promulgated by Frederick II or the Sardinian Carta de Logu. Feidhelm (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Restoring copyright violations

To whoever is restoring copyrighted content because "attribution is sourced", your edit summary indicates that you are aware that you are restoring copyrighted material to the article. We are not able to release under a Creative Commons license copyrighted work, even if it is attributed. For this reason, if it is restored again, I will remove it again, and I will be requesting revision deletion as soon as I figure out how to do it, if it will not burden the revision history too significantly. Ben Azura (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

1) Don't make assumptions. 2) I have no clue whether it is copyrighted or not. 3) The content was restored because it was sourced (see WP:RS). 4) Rather than a blanket deletion of relevant (and topic specific) content, there are other, more suitable options including re-writing material. 5) Edit wars (see WP:EW) are not a solution, never. 6) Learn how to ping a user. Archives908 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Archives908 fwiw, removal of unambiguous copyrighted content isn't edit warring. And just because it's sourced doesn't mean it isn't a copyvio. Also, re: point 6, maybe wp:bite a smidge less? Ben's been active for three months, has less than 70 edits total to all Talk namespaces, and a quick look at those discussions shows that no one ever used the ping function. @Ben Azura, if you have access to the source can you provide some proof that it's a copyvio? Since this is largely a descriptive list of facts, it would need to be pretty much identical to be a violation, and those few full sentences are easily rewritten. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether they are on here for 1 day or 10 years is irrelevant to this matter. They knowingly blanket deleted content of which we have no proof of it being a copyright violation. I suggested a fair and reasonable alternative (which you seem to also suggest) of attempting to rewrite any content that may violate policy. I'm aware that removing such content isn't edit warring- but the users comment above implies that they will keep removing content no matter what, which is not constructive and contradicts the spirit of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:BRD. I agree that Ben Azura should provide proof of any violations and we can then proceed to collaboratively seek resolution. Archives908 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether they are on here for 1 day or 10 years is irrelevant to this matter. Well, it's relevant to your sixth point, which is all I was responding to. I just think we can all AGF a little more--he's not a vandal, and may just have a slightly mistaken understanding of how copyright is applied here. We'll figure it out, no rush. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The table itself is copyrighted. The characteristics of legal systems like "sources of law" are his creative work. The order of rows is exactly same, as I said in my edit summary. For example, if someone publishes an anthology of English literature, and the literature is in the public domain, but they dont alter the selection of literature and they reproduce the work woth the chapters in the same order, it is copyrighted. We can't fix it - it needs to be removed because it copied his creative idea. Ot should probanly be revision deleted, possibly effecting years of revision history. Of course I can prove it, I can send you or an administrator a photo of the page by email.

tive law. Ben Azura (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your word is not proof. We need evidence to see the scale of the potential copyright violation. I am skeptical that the entire table, word for word, has been duplicated. If you have access to the source, please link it in this thread for us to review. If the copyright violation (if any) is minimal, we can alter the text/lingo to ensure no policies are violated. If in fact the entire table was copied, then it can be removed. Thanks, Archives908 (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an online copy of the book. I hadn't thought of looking for one. I think @Archive908: checked before restoring a possible copyright violation. I do have the book in front of me, and the entire table is nearly exactly copied : no additions to the columns or rows, no alteration of the order of the columns and rows, and most of the entries I checked were copied verbatim, with a few superficial additions (maybe made by subsequent editing). I emailed @Alyo: to send a copy of the page. Archive 908, I will look for an online copy for you. Ben Azura (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I simply restored the content because there was no evidence of any copyright violation provided. I do not have access to the source in question. Yes, please look for an online version, and present your proof here. Alyo, can you confirm that you have obtained the email with the table? If so, can you confirm or deny any copyright violations and the extent of it? Thank you, Archives908 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'm still waiting on Ben to send it, but I'll update you when I can. If you have a en.wp email I can also pass it along to you? I think that's gonna be much easier than online versions, which all appear to be paywalled. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Perfect- thank you! I don't have an email linked, however, I do trust your judgement. If and when you do get the proof, please do share your review of it so we can determine next steps appropriately. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alyo: Sent. I looked into the article history and found out its been in the article since 2009 when it was added by an ip and has seen some heavy editing since then. The changes to the original insertion are mostly unsourced. The copying is more extensive in earlier versions. It was definitely copied. But is it copyrightable? Ben Azura (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe it can only qualify as a violation if there is a substantial linguistic similarity. If in 2009, it was an exact copy & paste duplicate, then it should have been speedily removed at that time. However, it has been 14 years since, and as you said, there has been "some heavy editing since then". In that case, if it no longer resembles the initial work, than a partial restructuring/rephrasing of any dubious content, along with proper attribution, should be sufficient enough. I will leave it to Alyo to determine this based on the documentation made available to them. There is some really good pointers at WP:CV101 for anyone interested. Thanks, Archives908 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ben Azura, thank you again for doing the work to find the source and passing that along. The table that was added in 2009 is indeed an exact, character-for-character copy of the table that was in the book. However, as @Archives908 points out, there's been significant editing since then and some of the entries in the grid are completely different (e.g., Islamic Law--Juries said "Not allowed" in 2009, and now links to a referenced school). To be entirely honest, my gut is that the whole current table should be rewritten to be clearer, perhaps in prose form instead of textbook summary style. Keeping in mind that we're on the civil law page, I'm not sure we need an overview of all systems as much as the notable differences between civil law and other common (no pun intended) systems. As far as the copyright issue goes, why don't we list this at WP:Copyright problems and let the experts decide if anything needs to be revdel'd? I'm a little unconvinced, because the original table is so barebones and factual, but perhaps the structural copying is enough. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alyo: I agree completely. Administrators should make the call as to anything needing to be revdel'd. I would have gone to the WP:Copyright problems immediately if I had known about it. I interpreted Archives908's comments above to mean that he had some improvements in mind already and started a discussion about that below. I'm continuing to work on the article as well so we should make any needed improvements by regular editing after administrators make a decision about the copyright issue. Ben Azura (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

For the record, Ben Azura, I did not volunteer to fix the table at any point in this conversation. I merely recommended that the table could be improved, if necessary, instead of outright blanket deletion. That does not imply that I personally will be the one to take on that task. Thanks, Archives908 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input @Alyo: and I agree, best to let more experienced folks decide the fate of this table. I still believe, however, that it's inclusion in some capacity does have merit. With some refinement, it could help WP:BUILD up this article for the better. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Listed it here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 January 12. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I am a copyright clerk, and thank you for referring this to CP. It is indeed a complex issue-- below, I have highlighted the instances where content is copied in yellow, and rephrased copyrighted content in green:

	Common law	Civil law	Socialist law	Islamic law
Other names	Anglo-American, English, judge-made, legislation from the bench	Continental, Roman, Romano-Germanic, European Continental	Soviet	Religious law, Sharia
Source of law	Case law, legislation	Legislation	Legislation	Divine revelation
Lawyers	Judges act as impartial referees; lawyers are responsible for presenting the case	Judges dominate trials	Judges dominate trials	Secondary role
Qualifications of judges	Career lawyers (appointed or elected)	Career judges	Career bureaucrats, party members	Religious as well as legal training
Degree of judicial independence	High; separate from the executive and the legislative branches of government.	High; separate from the executive and the legislative branches of government.	Very limited; nominally subordinated to the legislative branch of government	Variable
Juries	Provided at trial level in some jurisdictions	May adjudicate in conjunction with judges in serious criminal matters	Often used at lowest level	Allowed in Maliki school, not allowed in other schools
Policy-making role	Courts share in balancing power	Courts have equal but separate power	Courts are subordinate to the legislature	Courts and other government branches are theoretically subordinate to the Shari'a. In practice, courts historically made the Shari'a, while today, the religious courts are generally subordinate to the executive.
Examples	Australia, United Kingdom (except Scotland), Israel, India, Cyprus, Nigeria, Republic of Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, United States (except Louisiana), Canada (except Quebec), New Zealand, Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh	Continental Europe (except Andorra, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia), Latin America (except Guyana, Belize and Cuba), East Asia (except Hong Kong, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Laos), North Africa, Francophone and Lusophone Africa, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Quebec, Louisiana	Soviet Union, People's Republic of China (except Hong Kong and Macau), North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba	Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Sudan, Malaysia, Pakistan and Yemen.

I do not think that anyone looking at the above can say that, in its current state, the table is not an unacceptable copyright violation. Yes, some content may have been changed, but the creative decisions in say, choosing and selecting topics for the rows and columns, and the entire structure of the table, remains unchanged. For now, I intend to remove most of the grossly infringing rows, other than the examples section, unless someone is willing to rewrite it from scratch. At the very least, this table needs to be completely rewritten from scratch.

Pinging @Ben Azura @Alyo @Archives908 – Isochrone (T) 21:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Isochrone: If it needs revdel I will be around to rewrite the section in prose form. I'm not sure if @Alyo: mentioned it in the CP report but the table has been in the article since 2009. Ben Azura (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ben Azura it isn't eligible for revdel (it has been in the article for so long and has so many intermediate revisions), but if you could rewrite it (or ideally restructure the table itself as well, if possible), that would be great. – Isochrone (T) 22:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Isochrone: Can we remove the entire table then? The examples section is unsourced and doesn't contain information relevant to the section topic, which is comparing the Civil Law system with other legal systems. I'm going to be using different sources, not only one source, to rewrite the section once CP is resolved. ~~ Ben Azura (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources can be added to the examples section; it should not be blanket deleted. Archives908 (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, you have to explain why you think so. If all the unsourced content and copyrighted content was removed from the table, the only content left would be about Shari'a. I don't think the table can be rewritten to comply with copyright violation because we know it was copied and we would only be making superficial changes to it. Ben Azura (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

None of the information present in the "Examples" section violates any copyrighted material; and it encompasses more than just Sharia law. The section provides readers some examples of where each of these systems of law are practiced. Just because the chart itself is a violation, it does not forbid us to compare the differences between Common law, Civil Law, etc. or to highlight some countries which practice these systems in a different manner. If we don't want to include a brand new comparison chart, then let me propose a compromise. We could have a small list of just the examples of countries that practice Civil law. It's common to have such examples on many Wiki articles and it does provide readers with more topic specific information- which is certainly not a bad thing (see the examples over at List of forms of government, Presidential system, and Multi-party system). Articles likes these (and there are dozens more) often include small lists of countries for informative purposes. May I say that I do find it comical that this thread is supposed to be focused on copyright violations, and were debating over the one section that isn't copyrighted! Archives908 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I support the above proposal by Archives908 and Alyo's comment.

@Isochrone: is there anything else that needs to be done? Ben Azura (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to this and agree that the "examples section" should remain. Thanks all! Archives908 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that I'm following this discussion, but don't currently have time to rewrite anything. I would endorse a wholesale removal and rewrite using other sources, as I think there are some significant issues with the table as written. I also think that the Examples row would be better served as prose, so that we can actually explain relevant differences between the systems using the examples to explain, rather than doing something that looks like an attempt to categorize every country on earth. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the examples section could also be written in prose -or- even a small bulleted list (as is done on other similar type articles). There are several other ways to include this information as supposed to a comparison chart or outright blanket deletion. I would not encourage listing every country on earth, but to include a handful, as already seen in the chart above would be sufficient enough. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Makes sense to me! Alyo (chat·edits) 14:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have removed the infringing rows and slightly rearranged the order of the section. Thank you to everyone for their swift and understanding replies to this, and please do ping me with any questions. – Isochrone (T) 17:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! Archives908 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Lede

I think @Archives908:'s last edit is on the right track [1]. The modern usage is not origin-dependent. Would there be objections to changing the lede to reflect this? Ben Azura (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Raladic (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Civil law (legal system) → Civil law – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Having the law system of the majority of the world as an equal to a part of a common law system shows a strong Anglospheric bias. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Disgree. I think the 2 sets of categories (Civil vs Criminal, as against Civil vs Common ) are disambiguated by the current arrangement. I do not see in that an "Anglospheric bias". Rather, while the latter does have a geo-political and historical dimension, it seems to me that the separation of sets of categories does not exist in order to serve a sinister agenda. Dinkenfunkle 08:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – Article titles are where Anglospheric bias is correct—we decide what things are named based on English-language RS, not on all RS. This is an English-language encyclopedia, and navigation is meant to benefit an English-language readership. The policy you cite explicates primary means highly likely [...] to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. This requires we take into account that the readership is an English-language one. Remsense ‥ 论 08:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed, per Dinkenfunkle and Remsense above. "Civil law" is just too ambiguous. That said, I don't think the current title really lives up to the spirit of WP:NCDAB, to wit: Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Even if parentheses were required, the disambiguator seems less than ideal, since "civil law" as used here is not really a legal system in the ordinary sense (note that legal system currently redirects to List of national legal systems), but more of a way of describing a historically related group of legal systems. With those considerations in mind, and with an eye to possible future discussions, I'd suggest that Civil law tradition (26.5k hits on Google Scholar) might be a more satisfactory title. -- Visviva (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons stated above by Remsense and Dinkenfunkle. I disagree with Visviva's alternate proposed title and find the current title to be satisfactory. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.