Talk:List of jurists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Criteria?
Are there criteria for inclusion? Judges can be included...but who else? Michael 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- And who defined "prominent"? Michael 03:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jurist has a very broad meaning in most English dialects and most languages as well. It generally refers to any law-trained person, not just judges. As for prominent, I suspect that whomever used that term probably intended that the person is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Coolcaesar 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, if you look up jurist, it is said that in the U.S., it only refer to judges, whereas it is more broad elsewhere... Michael 07:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just looked at a more authoritative source: my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. On page 860, a jurist is defined as follows: "One who has thorough knowledge of the law; especially a judge or an eminent legal scholar." I don't see what you are getting at. Are you saying that we need to include or exclude people from the list as it stands? --Coolcaesar 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The list is practically empty, then, when considering how many people could reasonably be included here. Does that mean we add all lawyers and judges? Michael 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, we add only the notable ones. I mean notable at a national level, so that would include Alex Kozinski and exclude Harry Pregerson (I like Pregerson's opinions but he just doesn't have the name recognition that Kozinski does). Also, we already have a list for lawyers, so we should add them there, not here, and then limit this list to judges and law professors. Additional examples of who qualifies: I'm thinking of John Hart Ely, Richard Posner, Roger Traynor, etc. People who made fundamental changes in how we conceptualize the law. --Coolcaesar 06:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The list is practically empty, then, when considering how many people could reasonably be included here. Does that mean we add all lawyers and judges? Michael 06:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just looked at a more authoritative source: my copy of Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. On page 860, a jurist is defined as follows: "One who has thorough knowledge of the law; especially a judge or an eminent legal scholar." I don't see what you are getting at. Are you saying that we need to include or exclude people from the list as it stands? --Coolcaesar 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, if you look up jurist, it is said that in the U.S., it only refer to judges, whereas it is more broad elsewhere... Michael 07:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jurist has a very broad meaning in most English dialects and most languages as well. It generally refers to any law-trained person, not just judges. As for prominent, I suspect that whomever used that term probably intended that the person is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Coolcaesar 04:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems very subjective, though...Literally thousands could qualify for this list. Michael 06:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. All we need to do is limit it to the jurists who already have Wikipedia articles on them, where the articles are more than mere stubs. Obviously, very few people are going to research and write an article on a jurist unless that person is really important (as I did for Roger Traynor). --Coolcaesar 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I removed Jim Garrison and Roy Bean. Garrison, though he is notable at a national level, is a District Attorney, not a judge. I don't think Bean qualifies, because though he is notable and is a judge, he never wrote any important decisions, legal treatises, etc., and the highest judicial position he ever held was state justice of the peace. The article on Bean doesn't cite any case in any court anywhere in the nation where one of Bean's decisions was cited, or any legal treatise, or for that matter any book at all, written by Bean. --Samuel 69105 (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
