Return to "law" page.

The two legal senses of "law"Edit

This distinction between "A written or understood rule" and "The body of written rules" is wrong and needs to be changed. A better distinction is between "The body of legal rules" (not written!; just remember customary law!) and "A written rule or set of rules". But we should do even better... Velho 03:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Recht / Gesetz; ius/lex; droit/loiEdit

This page is getting absurd... In German, law is either Recht or Gesetz; in French, Droit or Loi; in Latin, ius or lex; in Portuguese, direito or lei. How come did this page get to give two senses of "law" that someone is translating only by the latter?! Velho 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Synonym: TheoremEdit

In neither science nor mathematics is "theorem" synonymous with "law". They are related, but misunderstanding/conflating these two terms is a very significant and commonly-made mistake. I realize that a dictionary may not be particularly responsible for such nuances, so I don't want to go and edit this myself, but I think that stating that "theorem" is a synonym for "law" is a very poor choice. Is there a similar category that is used on Wiktionary, for "related" words or something? --DragoonWraith 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"One-sided contract"?Edit

In what sense is the word law supposed to mean a "one-sided contract"? I'd like to see a source or quotation for that assertion. In the meantime I'm deleting that definition; it can be reinstated if and when. It's pretty amazing that that nonsensical "definition" has been sitting there unchallenged since 27 May 2004. Milkunderwood 00:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

Rfd-redundant: The two definitions for scientific law seem redundant, but there might be some worthwhile elements in the newly added sense, however tendentious it may be. The contributor of the new sense evidently believed it the previous scientific sense to be redundant to his. DCDuring TALK 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda funny, we should give him the Eric Cartman award! That way we can tell him he's being a punk while at the same time complimenting him.Lucifer 02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Good grief. I just didn't have the time or energy to fix his ramblings. SemperBlotto 08:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I was talking to another user the other day (offsite) and was saying I would be surprised if I hadn't blocked him within 24 hours. That was more than 24 hours ago, and I've gotta say, I was right. I'm surprised. It would be one thing if the community were tolerating a poor editor who weren't so lazy. Recent examples: the one horrid quotation on tribbing, a quotation for throat-gagging where the two words were technically not connected to each other, a completely wrong inflection on be a man, adding superfluous and unverifiable information to the etymology of pussyboy which only applies to one of the several definitions...[Ric Laurent] — 12:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that there's a misunderstanding. The new sense was a modification of the old one, but then the old one was brought back in this edit. You can tell because they both have the same wording. —Internoob 06:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana 21:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


This term was sent to RFV, and the discussion has been archived at Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011 or Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011/more. - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

removed "see also language appendix"Edit

I removed this from the top of the article: {{also|Appendix:ISO 639-3 language codes}}

which printed this: See also: Appendix:ISO 639-3 language codes

I removed it because it means nothing. I came to this page looking for a certain definition of law, and I'm told to see an appendix. I click on it and I get a list of languages and I have no idea why I'm supposed to be reading this list.

If someone thinks it should be re-added, please use a clearer tag and say why the reader might want to read that appendix. Gronky (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Last modified on 30 January 2014, at 16:22