User talk:Errantios

You are not a new user, so I doubt you need to be templated with a COI template, but if I'm wrong about that, you can read the content of it at {{Uw-coi}}. I've done part of the disclosure for you, adding {{connected contributor}} templates at the two Kelsen articles. If there are other related articles I don't know about, please add them there as well. Mathglot (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is in your reply to your comment of 00:28, 7 May at Talk:Pure Theory of Law. I am unable to respond there, as this concerns you personally and your editing, and has nothing to do with discussing improvements to the article.

In your comment, you quoted from COI, and stated that you have no such conflictual relationship as mentioned at the policy that could trigger a conflict of interest. In my opinion, you are an expert editor in the area of the philosophy of law, Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law, legal norms, and related topics. The possible COI relationship I see would be through your employer (past or present), a top Australian law school that presumably paid you for your work there. You have numerous publications such as "Kelsen, the Enlightenment and Modern Premodernists" (2012) published in the Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, and many more. Many of these publications are related to your specialty which is at least partly related to what your remuneration is for (presumably professors with no publications in their field don't last long at top universities). So for me, you are paid at least in part in exchange for these publications. This appears to me to trigger the "employer" relationship of the COI policy with respect to articles on your specialty subjects at Wikipedia.

It's evident from your comment at the Talk page that you disagree and reject the idea that any conflict of interest is involved. Perhaps I am getting the facts of your relationship with the university wrong, or perhaps I'm reading the COI policy with respect to paid editing wrong. I think the thing to do now, is to let other editors who are more used to the ins and outs of COI have a look at this, and whatever the consensus is there, I'm fine with it. I'll let them know about this issue, and I'll post a link to it for you here. Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "Perhaps I am getting the facts of your relationship with the university wrong". As you can see at the beginning of the article that you mention, my current position is actually honorary.

Then you say: "perhaps I'm reading the COI policy with respect to paid editing wrong". The policy, as I understand it, refers to payment specifically for editing Wikipedia. I would be surprised to find any academic who is paid specifically for editing Wikipedia or even receives credit for doing so. Errantios (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your latest edit, but I question "unless perhaps what is socially posited as "law" is intolerably immoral." They considered Nazi law to be law, so what could be "intolerably immoral"? Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to Radbruch: see section "Criticism", where I have added some citations. Errantios (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and I am glad that I deleted it from the opening paragraph, because Radbruch aside, the separation of law and morality is fundamental to legal positivism. In addition, what you quote from Radbruch is not coherent. He says that if the statute is unjust to an intolerable degree, it is "flawed law" and must yield to justice. That sounds as if he means that it should not be enforced rather than that it is not law, for flawed law is law by definition. Then he says, supposedly "more precisely," that it's not even flawed law. Or does he mean that flawed law becomes not even flawed law only when it lacks equality? And why is equality (whatever that means), rather than due process, "the core of justice"? U.S. law lacks equality in the unequal ways that it treats rich and poor (usually Black) criminal defendants, for example. Yet positivists would not deny that it is law.

I suspect that Radbruch wanted to put Nazi law in its own category, because it was uniquely reprehensible. It has been decades since I read the Hart-Fuller debates, but didn't Hart say that Nazi law was law? I think that Radbruch's comment, for what it is worth, is fine in a section called "Criticism." But, if I'm right about Hart, we might add a comment from him following Radbruch's. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is possible to identify what is "fundamental to legal positivism", only what tenets are commonly placed under that label. (I will soon be able to cite a publication of my own to that effect.)

Radbruch has been criticised for ambiguity. However, he did not wholly reject the separation thesis, just put a limit on it.

I also don't think that Hart can be brought in to correct Radbruch about Nazism, if that is what you have in mind. Ott, in the piece that I have cited and in his book on legal positivism, has shown that Radbruch knew much more about Nazi law than Hart ever did. And let us remember Hart's "minimum content of natural law". The one who held out completely for counting things as 'law' irrespective of morality was Kelsen. Errantios (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Legal positivism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. C'mon, you've been around long enough to know this. Just try WP:BRD or something; this is beneath you. Mathglot (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been the aggressor here, as in "Please disclose your COI" above. Errantios (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice derail. Please revert your edit-warring at the article. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an edit war in Legal positivism, you began it by undoing my "Disputed" tag. But I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. In a moment, anyway, you will see that I am withdrawing from discussion of that article, owing to impending COI. Errantios (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I must advise you that despite the section above about a possible COI, I was unsure of whether COI did or did not apply in your case, and considered raising it at the noticeboard, but in the end, I did not. As far as I am aware, you are under no COI restriction, and needn't withdraw at the article unless that is your wish.

Regarding the edit war: a single revert on my part following your WP:BOLD edit to insert the {{disputed}} tag is not edit warring, it is restoring the status quo in line with WP:BRD, and inviting you to seek consensus by discussion (the "D" in BRD). You chose not to discuss, but simply asserted your right to reinsert your preferred content without consensus as a fait accompli, and did so. The right action now, would be to self-revert, and discuss. Mathglot (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding COI, kindly note the word "impending" both here and in Talk. As to the rest, you are entitled to your interpretation. Errantios (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]