Talk:Ius

copyediting etc

This article is a bit of a mess: no intro, and many many abbreviations that aren't explained anywhere (these pretend to function as citations, but are woefully inadequate: "Du Cange," with no further reference for instance, or "Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 733" or "Bract. fol. 222" (explained nowhere). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Hello again, cw. We seem to be on the same track. This article basically has one reference, Black's, which is set up as a dictionary. That's a fine ref. However, the article is mainly lacking in method. Quotes are made without cites and without marking them as quotes, so it would be difficult to find anything if Black's were not a dictionary. The confusion results from the inexperience in WP methods. I do have another Manual of Roman Law I want to use also. What I propose to do is go through here marking quotes and doing some rewriting according to my other source. This article quotes too much and explains little. In effect the whole thing is lifted from Black's, which has no CR so it isn't breaking the law but at the same time just copying from sources such as 1911 Britannica and this is generally recognized as a temporary measure and not good practice. Of course it is not good to get too far from the material in Black's as it is a good work and a good source. I'll see what I can do.Dave (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Law in the abstract

I'm condensing Black and bringing in Berger, who is a little more of a Latinist. I note the editor has added a bit of his own interpretation. It seems reasonable to me so I'm keeping it as presentation rather than original interpretation. It looks like standard stuff. No need to get too narrow. I doubt anyone would question it. Just a comment on Black - he isn't doing a blueprint, only presenting definitions and general principles. I think he can be condensed. We don't want to make diplomatic-type distinctions based on HIS language.Dave (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The red lines

Ideally we would like to see every ius in there and an article for every ius but that isn't going to happen because the publication of Roman jurisprudence occupies quite a number of volumes. What is worse, the editors wanted to include all the iura in Black, which are comprised of iura from other lands and times. So, we are not speaking of a large undertaking but of a monumental undertaking. It won't get done. These red lines will be on there until the moon turns black and stars fall from the sky (honest truth, no exaggeration). Unless there is an article to cover it I am taking them off. The editors apparently conceived they would split Black up and put him in numerous articles word for word. That isn't our function. Perseus Digital Library has that approach. We are not republishing Black here. If we were he should go in Wikisource. If anyone wants a ius in here it can go in and if anyone writes an article on a ius it can be linked in. I'm only cleaning up what is there in this article, at least for now. Editors, please stop plagiarizing Black. The public cannot understand either the language or the cryptic references. If you can't give a reasonable presentation, my advice is, don't do it. The original task as you conceived it is far beyond your or our scope.Dave (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117155359/http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello/ to http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)