Talk:Bicycle law in the United States

External links

I'm at a loss to understand which policies most of the links you removed violated. And yes, I did read the policies links you provided. At least some of the links you removed, and perhaps most of them, do not violate those policies, as I read the policies. If you think the links you removed do violate external link policies, can you be more specific about which links violate which policies? Because right now, all I have is a vague statement that they violate external link policies, which, as far as I can tell, is not even accurate in regards to many of the links that were deleted.. Blue Order (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[copied to here from User talk:DeFacto for further comment] -- de Facto (talk). 23:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

These, which were listed under the heading 'Bibliography' were not referenced in the article, so were nothing more than a collection of external links - which is not what Wikipedia is for. See WP:LINKFARM -- de Facto (talk). 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

These, which were listed under the heading 'External links' did not comply with the wp:el policy - which covers 'External links'. Specifically, links should contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article for very specific reasons, the number of links "should be kept to a minimum", should "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website", and should be from reliable sources - which generally excludes self-published sources. -- de Facto (talk). 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't provide any more information than I already have. I think I'm going to have to go through them here one link at a time, then, with references to the relevant policies, because I disagree that they're in violation of the policies. I'll allow that some *might* be in violation, but many of them meet the guidelines. If you disagree, we're going to have to get much more specific about which ones violate the policy, and why. Blue Order (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This link: * U.S. State Laws Concerning Bicycling Is a link to the bicycle laws in 50 states (admittedly a U.S. focus, but that's a different issue.). The page provides links to bicycle laws for each state, as provided by the state legislatures. The page is the only such collection of links to the bicycle laws in existence. By definition, it is neutral (because it provided by the states), it is accurate (again, because it is provided by the states), and because it is a reference to specific state laws, it is not appropriate to integrate into an article that is more about the general legal theory of a body of law than it is about specific state laws. While the article doesn't depend upon this link, the link is highly relevant to the subject of the article, and the reader is impoverished by the exclusion of a link to state bicycle laws in an article about bicycle law. Blue Order (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Bicycle law article does not represent worldwide view of the subject" tag

This is true. It is also something that I was aware of before the tag was placed.

By it's very nature, law is a somewhat parochial endeavor. In the United States alone, there are 50 separate state court systems,50 separate state legislatures, a federal court system, with some federal courts even dealing with specific areas of the law, a national legislature, and a tribal court system and tribal legislatures. By the nature of the complexity of the law, no America lawyer can possibly be familiar with more than a small segment of the law. Now consider that there are nearly 200 countries in the world, each with their own court systems, legislatures, and legal traditions. It is virtually impossible for any one person to author an article addressing that complexity.

Nor would it be possible to write an article that addresses that complexity, and still remain within some sort of manageable article length. Furthermore, some countries will have an extensive body of bicycle law, while other countries may have little-to-no bicycle law. That being the case, whose perspective gets presented? By default, it will be the perspective of those nations with an established body of bicycle law.

Nevertheless, it is true that this article is currently focused on U.S. bicycle law. It is also true that the article is not complete-- it is still being written. As I expand the article, I will include discussion of bicycle law in other countries, as my knowledge permits. For example, I will be including a discussion of the Netherlands law that establishes a prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the motorist in any collision between a motorist and a cyclist. I will also be including a discussion of the Netherlands requirement that the motorist's insurance pay for the cyclist's injuries, even if the motorist is not at fault. That said, for a more complete discussion of bicycle law in the Netherlands, or Denmark, or the U.K., or Canada, or France, or any other country that has a developed system of bicycle law, it will be up to legal experts in those nations to contribute to this article. Blue Order (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

One possibility is to rename the article to match the scope of the content - "Bicycle law in the United States of America" or even narrow it to a specific state. -- de Facto (talk). 23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, renaming that might work. Or, alternatively, having a general article about bicycle law that represents a worldwide view, with internal links to bicycle law main articles for specific countries (in this case, an internal link to a main article about bicycle law in the United States). I'd have to think a bit about how to accomplish the latter, given my lack of expertise on the law outside of the U.S. It might be that your suggestion is best. Blue Order (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)