Talk:Common law/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Cleaning up: "archaic" to make an arcane point

The use of archaic in the article goes back a long way: it is a survival from the early version 20:59, 21 July 2007 (Valkyryn) "‎Primary definitions: Added historical uses of the term".[1] The text is not sourced, and I have not seen that adjective used in Black's fourfold definition, or in other RS.

The then text in July 2007 was: "The term "common law" was used to describe the law held in common between the circuits and the different stops in each circuit. The more widely a particular law was recognized, the more weight it held, whereas purely local customs were generally subordinate to law recognized in a plurality of jurisdictions. These definitions are archaic, their relevance having dissipated with the development of the English legal system over the centuries, but they do explain the origin of the term."

The current version cites Jefferson, but adds an editorial comment "This definition is found or alluded to in some internet dictionaries", and quotes Lectric Law Dictionary "That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It is at best obsolete. It is both underinclusive and overinclusive. Lawyers never rely on this definition."

The sole purpose of that editorial comment (from Revision 18:00, 26 January 2013, 71.232.38.88, ‎Primary connotations)[2] appears to be to refute the Jefferson citation quoting him writing "This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." And "... that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed." This supports Jefferson's polemical opinion that the term "common law" is, or was in the 18c., used in respect of the pagan Saxons in England, as if Jefferson's opinion was archaic. Actually, that is of little if any notability in this or any other part of the article.

This is an arcane point which contributes next to nothing to the article, but perhaps would have a place somewhere else such as "Sources of law" in Law of the United States. Qexigator (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

+ And come to think of it, seeing the many lines of Jefferson quoted, here is a clear case of UNDUE: res ipsa loquitur, cui bono? etcetera.Qexigator (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

+ The point about this is first, the use of "archaic", and second the unduly lengthy Jefferson quotes (interesting though they are), but in view of comments below, please note that the Jefferson quotes appeared in a July 2012 version (‎Medieval English common law: Common Law existed prior to Alfred...and Christianity, for that matter...),[3] and later, under the heading "Historical" in the 1 November 2013 version (‎Historical uses: Fixing the copy to actually reflect what the citations state, and removing un-cited commentary),[4] viz:

• from 1 November 2013 version QUOTE Historical uses In addition, there are several historical uses of the term that provide some background as to its meaning. "Common law" is also used to refer to the pre-Christian system of law, imported by the Saxons to England, and dating to before the Norman conquest.[21][22] This definition is found or alluded to in some internet dictionaries.[23] The English Court of Common Pleas dealt with lawsuits in which the Monarch had no interest, i.e., between commoners... ENDQUOTE
• The (previously) current version, for comparison Archaic meanings and historical uses In addition, there are several historical (but now archaic) uses of the term that, while no longer current, provide background context that assists in understanding the meaning of "common law" today. In one usage that is now archaic, but that gives insight into the history of the common law, "common law" referred to the pre-Christian system of law, imported by the Saxons to England, and dating to before the Norman conquest, and before there was any consistent law to be applied.[35][36] That usage is obsolete today. It is both underinclusive and overinclusive, as discussed in the section on "misconceptions."

Qexigator (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)part deleted in view of recent article edits. 15:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Update

While, as said above, it would be rash to see any version as final and perfect, it is a pleasure to welcome DCLawwyer's recent series of edits[5] so that the question about "Cleaning up: 'archaic' " can be considered afresh.

The whole subsection, from version as at 12:25, 23 November 2017 for comparison Archaic meanings and historical uses In addition, there are several historical (but now archaic) uses of the term that, while no longer current, provide background context that assists in understanding the meaning of "common law" today. In one usage that is now archaic, but that gives insight into the history of the common law, "common law" referred to the pre-Christian system of law, imported by the Saxons to England, and dating to before the Norman conquest, and before there was any consistent law to be applied.[35][36] That usage is obsolete today. It is both underinclusive and overinclusive, as discussed in the section on "misconceptions.". "Common law" as the term is used today in common law countries contrasts with ius commune. While historically the ius commune became a secure point of reference in continental European legal systems, in England it was not a point of reference at all.[37] The English Court of Common Pleas dealt with lawsuits in which the Monarch had no interest, i.e., between commoners. Black's definition 3 is "3. General law common to a country as a whole, as opposed to special law that has only local application."[38] From at least the 11th century and continuing for several centuries after that, there were several different circuits in the royal court system, served by itinerant judges who would travel from town to town dispensing the King's justice in "assizes". The term "common law" was used to describe the law held in common between the circuits and the different stops in each circuit.[38] The more widely a particular law was recognized, the more weight it held, whereas purely local customs were generally subordinate to law recognized in a plurality of jurisdictions.[38]

Some visitors to the article who have sufficient prior knowledge of the topic could see a need for further impovement in the way this part of the article is presenting the information to others not having such prior knowledge. In particular, not everyone may see the link in the words 'as discussed in the section on "misconceptions."' as all that needs to be done. However, it could be argued that the article as a whole demonstrates something of which those "who have sufficient prior knowledge of the topic" are well aware: the difficulty of adequately explaining in few words how the common law is understood by those who have studied or practised it, and that the additional information in "Misconceptions and imprecise nonlawyer usages" could be seen as more helpful than not in this respect, given that the article cites the four usages in Black's. Qexigator (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

DCLawwyer's critique

Stop. You have no judgement.

You don't even read carefully. The Jefferson quotes aren't cited for the current definition, or for the truth of the matter asserted. They're in the section on obsolete and archaic usages. Somewhere along the way, you complained about lack of a lexicographic cite to show some particular usage -- now here it is, and you complain about that. You've been so obsessed with a historical definition, and here is a perfect historical artifact -- and you complain about it. (When others point out that your understanding is obsolete, you push back on that.)

You don't read carefully, and you have no judgement. Just stop. If you edit along the lines you propose here, I'll initiate the request for a ban.

DCLawwyer (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear DCLawwyer, perhaps you could explain why you comment "The Jefferson quotes aren't cited for the current definition, or for the truth of the matter asserted" as if my explanation above asserted that the Jefferson quotes were cited for the current definition. My remarks are about the Jefferson quotes cited in the text under the heading "Archaic meanings and historical uses" in the Definitions section, and the comment after it, Archaic meanings and historical uses : QUOTE"In one archaic usage, "common law" refers to the pre-Christian system of law, imported by the Saxons to England, and dating to before the Norman conquest, and before there was any consistent law to be applied.[34]Jefferson[35]Jefferson This definition is found or alluded to in some internet dictionaries.[36]Lectric Law Dictionary: That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It is at best obsolete. It is both underinclusive and overinclusive. Lawyers never rely on this definition."ENDQUOTE. Qexigator (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the follow-up question is.

If the follow-up question is that Qexigator doesn't understand the answer, it's because Qexigator has so little familiarity with legal topics. For example, "offered for the truth of the matter asserted" or "offered only for the fact that he said it, not for its truth" are phrases and concepts that every lawyer knows (fundamental to the principle of hearsay). Standard legal jargon seems to have confused Qexigator -- demonstrating again that Qexigator's knowledge of legal topics does not warrant editing with a heavy hand. Quexigator's malapropisms, inapposite use of res ipsa loquitur and cui bono, are other examples proving the point.

If the follow-up question is that Quexigator believes I answered the wrong question, it's because Qexigator's long initial question is so poorly formed. I read it again several times -- while I think I answered the most-rational interpretation of it, the initial question is so thought-disordered that I have no certainty that I did in fact answer what Qexigator had in mind. Like so much of Qexigator's writing, the initial question here verges on gibberish. I made the mistake of trying to understand Qexigator's initial question and give a direct answer (unlike Qexigator's pattern of evasion)--and if I guessed wrong, then I'll avoid guessing in the future. I'll just call it gibberish and stop.

Qexigaotr's initial question demonstrates another pervasive problem with Qexigator's edits that I didn't mention in my initial long list [6]. While Qexigator is very quick to disagree with what others did, Qexigator often doesn't understand why the existing text is there (that seems to be the case here), Qexigator can't articulate a problem, Qexigator's rewrite loses the point that the old text was trying to communicate (again, that seems to be the issue here), and Qexigator seldom offers anything new that is more correct or insightful.

This proposal also demonstrates another thing I observed in reviewing these Talk pages. In most other fields -- especially common law! -- long stability is an indicator of "probably correct." For some reason, several times Qexigator states that because something has been stable for years or "goes back a long way," Qexigator seems to start with a presumption of error in the established consensus. That's just crazy Messianic narcissism. It's a very strong indicator that Qexigator's edits are disruptive, not an attempt to build on the work of others, not helpful or insightful.

Qexigator has little knowledge, and no judgement. Don't edit.

DCLawwyer (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps comments such as DCLawwyer's above are more intelligible to those who are familiar with US jurisdictions and law schools than to others. For my part I have not come across anything quite like it after some years editing and discussing on Talk pages Wikipedia articles on legal and other topics. We can at least note that DCLawwyer's comments fail to address the matter to which I have drawn attention: that (in my opinion) the part of the article in question contributes next to nothing to the article and is a clear case of UNDUE:, in other words, while noting that the text "goes back a long way", we can see (for the reason given above at the top of this sectiion) that the article would be improved if this part of the text, including the long quotes from Jefferson in the footnote, were removed, viz.,

• In one archaic usage, "common law" refers to the pre-Christian system of law, imported by the Saxons to England, and dating to before the Norman conquest, and before there was any consistent law to be applied. This definition is found or alluded to in some internet dictionaries.

Qexigator (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The hearsay rule in the UK is the same as in the US in the relevant respect--a statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted is treated differently than the same statement offered only for the fact that it was stated. If Qexigator finds this is less than "intelligible," that's a pretty clear admission from Qexigator that he understands too little to edit a legal topic for anything more than simple grammar and typos.

Qexigator's "opinion" is, I gather, the best basis available for his proposal. Qexigator's "opinion" is uninformed, as he now admits ("more intelligible to those who are familiar with US jurisdictions... For my part I have not come across anything quite like it after some years editing and discussing on Talk pages") and shown in exhausting detail above. Qexigator's opinion lacks judgement about what's relevant and what isn't. Qexigator's edits raise presumptions of bad faith, for which Qexigator's best explanations only deepen the concern. Qexigator's position today clashes with the position Qexigator has been pushing for 18 months--history has been very important until today (I agree, history is important, but it's important to characterize it as history, not as current knowledge).

The very part of the article quoted in the initial question explains how this piece of history fits into the overall tapestry, and contributes to understanding of where we are today. Is this the most important paragraph of the whole article? No. But does it respond to misimpressions held by significant numbers of people, and help explain why certain views aren't exactly wrong, but they need to be understood in correct context? Yup, that's exactly what it does.

It requires judgment and knowledge of the whole subject to understand how this paragraph fits. Two things Qexigator lacks.

Don't edit. Don't even propose to edit. All of the past warnings of the brink of being banned are there in the history of Quxigator's talk page. They're in this talk page. "I don't have the time to take this to ArbCom. I will certainly support anyone who does. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)"

DCLawwyer (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear DCLawwyer, Thank you for letting us all know, at some length, what you feel about this. It does not look, however, that you have yet been willing to address the matter in question, as above said, viz, "the part of the article in question contributes next to nothing to the article and is a clear case of UNDUE:, in other words, while noting that the text "goes back a long way", we can see (for the reason given above at the top of this sectiion) that the article would be improved if this part of the text, including the long quotes from Jefferson in the footnote, were removed". It may be that others find more or less entertaining the ingenuity, displayed in some of your comments, to assert fault where none exists in order to bolster a demand that another stop editing. Qexigator (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No point in having a discussion with Qexigator if Qexigator doesn't read. The question as Qexigator poses it has now been answered three times: in the original article itself, in the paragraph immediately under the heading "DCLawwyer's critique," and in the third paragraph of yesterday's post. Qexigator's question originates in careless reading of the article itself, and persists only because Qexigator doesn't read the Talk discussion and elaboration. I won't continue to feed a troll. DCLawwyer (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Punctuation/abbreviation revision

Just to say, in case the matter were to be discussed, that my recent revisions are supported by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Exceptions and WP:MOS#LQ, as per the more recent revert. Harfarhs (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Harfarhs: Hi thanks for addressing this. I had started to discuss this with DCLawwyer on user talk pages but perhaps it should have been done here. It is pretty clear that Wikipedia does use British style or "logical" punctuation around quotations. I agree that "US" is preferred on Wikipedia especially (and clearly so) when there is "UK" in the same article. Also the question has come up whether in general the article should be made to adhere to American or British English or neither. I object to it being aligned only to American usage because the topic is not about something primarily related to or of interest to the US. I think it should either be left up in the air, and no edits made to change any particular instances to the other, per MOS:ENGVAR, or, if one had to be decided upon, aligned to British English. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Length

This article is way, way too long. It has long winding quotes, and examples taking many paragraphs. I'd like to do some "slash and burn" editing getting those parts shorter, and leaving only the i) relevant and ii) cited parts in. Any objections or suggestions on what's the best place to start? L.tak (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be good to start by using the fourfold definition in Black's dictionary, as in earlier versions[7], and [8], [9]. The purpose of those edits was (as said above) to give prominence "to the definition in Black's Law Dictionary 10th edition, 2014, and its editor-in-chief Bryan A. Garner, seeing that among the numerous countries having a common law system, the most populous is the US, and we may expect that a fairly large proportion of visitors to the article (monthly average pageviews 74,110) will be from there." Black's may be little known outside USA but its content, at least in those definitions, would be recognized by common law practitioners and academics anywhere, thus, RS and neither pov tendentious nor contentious. Qexigator (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, L.Tak. Of course I welcome another contributor -- if you're knowledgeable about the subject matter (including understanding what's important and what isn't, and when two topics relate to each other and should be juxtaposed rather than separated, etc.). If you're a practicing lawyer (especially outside the U.S.), I'd love to see another perspective. I (as a practicing U.S. lawyer) believe that the content of the article is really very good today -- it explains how common law processes work, what's important, what is obsolete, where things came from, what was a prominent view a long time ago and why it's no longer a current view, what a client should know at the outset of a litigation about how decisions get made, and the like. Most importantly, it addresses the misconceptions that many of my clients have when they walk into my office--the article explains how things really work, and teaches clients away from some of the wrongheaded ideas that lay clients often start with. But I have no doubt that some parts can be simplified (sometimes "simplification" means making the explanation longer so that it's more readily understood).

On the other hand, if you have the same kind of agenda-driven approach as Qexigator, backed by very little observable knowledge in the subject, then please edit with a very light hand. I'm sure there are typos that can benefit from your attention. If you're a practicing lawyer, I'm really looking forward to your contributions. If you come with no more than preconceived notions that have no grounding in reality and no humility about the limits of your own understanding (again, Qexigator is a great example), then please don't.

He DCLawyer, thanks for welcoming me, it always feels good to be welcomed. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and we have to find a cooperative way to do so. I am relatively knowledgeble on wikipedia procedures and international law (of the private international law variety), with a strong interest in conflict of laws and the EU, and what's common in wikipedia articles, but not a lawyer. I am not a big fan of looking at simplification as the way to shorten. I am looking more at the focussing of articles, for example by not using extremely long examples, by farming out long part to other articles (see below about that). L.tak (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for jumping on you too hard too fast. I've just spent way too much time exorcising a complete idiot (Qexigaotor), and your first question looked too much like too much of what he'd written. Please don't go his route. The fact that you engaged with my questions is a big difference, and I appreciate that. DCLawwyer (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled about two things, and would appreciate an explanation before you do too much.

(a) Your statement that "This article is way, way too long." What is "too long?" The article in Encyclopaedia Britannica on "common law" is well over 100 pages -- this is far shorter (and far more focused on the practical stuff that nonlawyers should know about the way courts work). What's the criterion you have in mind for "too long?" I'd be surprised if there's anything significant that should be cut, or "slashed and burned" as you put it. I have no doubt that some things can be simplified. But if you think big paragraphs should be cut, then I'd like to suggest that you carefully consider the likelihood that that thought reflects a lack of understanding of why something is important, rather than lack of importance. This article has received the love of lots of very knowledgeable people -- I would think twice before you assume that you know more than all of them put together.

That a good point of course. There is always a risk we throw out the things we don't understand. There is a different risk of course, that through not daring to choose, we obscure the real meaning of a subject. I prefer shorter articles (this is an extremely long one at wikipedia!), for reasons of readabilty (e.g. on tablets and phones, and in those parts of the world where internet is not as fast), and for reasons of readability for those who are more interested in a cursory understanding. Those may read the lead, but the rest is too much. And we have lots of options in that regard to bring the message across, using links at the top of a chapter to the main article of the subject, see template:see and template:main, as well as links, to tell a great story without getting to those long pages (common law in the United States seems not to exist as a separate article from law in the United States, that may be worth considering to create?)

At least this proposed subdivision simply doesn't work -- it proposes to divide things where the interesting and instructive point is the commonality. And it proposes to group things that don't group -- there is no such thing as "common law of the United States" there are 51 systems that vary among themselves more than the transatlantic differences. I'm not saying the article can't be subdivided, only that this subdivision doesn't make sense.

On my phone, wikipedia does a good job of the "slow reveal" -- the lead paragraphs (two paragraphs, in versions free of Qexigator's misguided nonsense) give the two most important facts to know -- how common law precedent works, and that "common law" in today's world is a geographic phenomenon stemming from history. Then the rest of the article shows up as topics that can be opened or closed. That seems just right to me -- like a newspaper "inverted pyramid." What's the difference between what you're proposing and what exists? DCLawwyer (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(b) Are you a person that reads and thinks carefully before you edit? I note several of your "citation needed" tags are added at points where there are two closely-related sentences, and the footnote you ask for is only a sentence away. In other cases, the cite you ask for is already right in front of your nose in a Wiki link in the very sentence to which you added your "citation needed" tag. If you read and think carefully, I look forward to your contributions. If this "edit first think later" approach is representative of the care with which you read and edit text, then I'd suggest that you should edit with a very, very, very light hand.

Thanks again to state you look forward to my contributions and under which conditions. However, this is a talk page of an article and not a talk page about me or you, so for the rest of the conversation: please stay on the topic. If there are issues with me, feel free to use my talk page, or one of the message boards about user conduct. Others may take this way of writing it down as a personal attack (wp:NPA). I have no issues with doing it once however... As for the citation needed templates. I am aware I placed them very closely to citations (at times). I did so to indicate citation issues. Some statements were extraordinary strong (alll legal systems rely on written decisions), or are of a type where citation is needed for a specific reason (I don't need to know that a dictionary exists, so no citation there, but a reliable independent source that it is the main dictionary used by US lawyers (this type of statement often turns out ot be incorrect, so I follow the "don't trust, but verify" doctrine). The location of the template:cn was simply to highly the reasons why the citations were needed, not the place where they should be placed. Possibly such a citation request is covered by the citation following it, but then using the "|quote" tag, a quote could be added. L.tak (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, some of the discussion of dictionaries is a little -- well, weird. It's written the way it is, apparently, to bludgeon Qexigator. His efforts are having negative echoes of the form you describe, and the only way to get him to abandon some of his nonsense was to use dictionaries in a really heavy-handed way. If you could add your voice to those cautioning him, perhaps the writing can revert to a more traditional form. DCLawwyer (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(c) You added "citation needed" tags for the propositions that most of contract and tort law exist solely in common law, with very little statute. I suppose one could ask for cites as an exercise in pedantry -- but do you really seriously contend that they need cites? Do you think either proposition is remotely questionable? If there's no footnote added, is the note with which you opened this discussion really suggesting removing these two propositions? Do you agree or disagree with the Wikipedia guideline question, "Is the knowledge so self-evident that it really does not need to be cited at all? (Some things do not.)" And if this is what your "citation needed" tag means, what are reasonable editors to do with the rest of them? What are we to make of your general level of judgment?

I am not saying they are questionable, I am just saying they need to be sourced by a reliable source, because I am not sure if the statement is true. In my wp:edit summary (which you probably have seen, and which I consistently use), I indicated that in the UK, parts of those common law areas have become written law (e.g. the conflict of laws part regarding applicable law, jurisdiction, and the parts about consumer contracts). That means there is possibly the statement "most contract law is pure common law". That's of course not a worldwide perspective (it's just the UK), but still: it is clear that a citation is needed. L.tak (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Very similar in the U.S. -- we have statutes that tweak bits and pieces of contract, tort, and property law, but the base is entirely common law.

Your "citation needed" tags look a lot like requests to cite "we are srrounded by air" -- a proposition that is so basic that it seems to fall within "Is the knowledge so self-evident that it really does not need to be cited at all? (Some things do not.)" I think I'm reacting more to your initial proposal to remove points that are unsourced -- that's a poor choice of what to cut. And it seems you've backed off that. But if it makes you happy, sure, I'll see what I can find.DCLawwyer (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

DCLawwyer (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

DCLawyer, please see my comments edited in (I have isnged all of them for ease of reference) L.tak (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with L.tak that this article is far too long in its current form and needs significant trimming and/or splitting off. DCLawwyer has questioned "what is 'too long'?" and noted that the corresponding EB article is 100 pages long, but neither of those have any relevance here – we have an established guideline at WP:LENGTH. The article's prose (measured with Dr. PDA's tool) currently totals 106 kB after the reductions in my edits tonight. This is clearly beyond the 100 kB limit at which an article "almost certainly should be divided". I encourage all concerned editors to examine the article's current content and identify anything that is superfluous/poorly-sourced and could be deleted or trimmed, or is outside the core article's scope and thus could be spun off into a new, more specific article of its own (there's quite a lot of both, from what I can see). I will endeavor to do so myself in the next few weeks.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A couple of observations.

My view, both as a practicing attorney and as an academic. First, it's crucial to keep all information about "how common law processes work today" together, in this article. Second, to a degree almost unique to "common law" as a subject, to understand today, history is essential as well -- much of the way common law works today is that way because of that history. Those two considerations specific to "common law" drive a lot of other decisions.

So, within those two constraints, what could be done?

The article has a lot of discussion of distant history that has very little effect on the way we do things today. Influences from before 1180 are very attenuated today, and I would have no problem with moving almost all of that ("Origins," "Medieval" and "Roman", and discussions of pre-Christian Britain) to an article on "History of common law" (or something like that) and reducing the existing "history" section by a few hundred words. On the other hand, everything in the "history" section from about 1600 on ("Coke and Blackstone" and everything following) is directly relevant to the way we do things today, and directly relevant to readers. I would strongly oppose cutting those sections in any significant way, or moving them out of the attentional horizon.

Likewise, the article has redundancy ripe for consolidation -- and I think User:White_whirlwind did a good job of consolidating multiple references to early practice.

I have no objection to considering an attempt to spin off a daughter (after consensus here on the talk page -- I suggest that User:Coolceaser and User:Famspear are two particularly active editors in the legal space whose work I respect). Please get that consensus here before you start your "spin off" or do further "triming." But here on a Sunday morning, it seems to me that the article is pretty good at covering the stuff that (for example) a first year law student needs to know about how "common law" works before sitting in on the first class, why it is the way it is, and (except for distant history) doesn't have very much stuff that's wildly superfluous. Some, but not very much. I can always change my mind on anything in response to a sound proposal, but I don't see a natural split.

On the other hand, I think it was a mistake to remove this sentence from the opening paragraph in the name of "trimming:"

Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems

A mere mention of the word "stare decisis" in the previous sentence is not an explanation for why it's important -- that consistent results are the whole reason for doing things the way we do. The name and the why are two entirely different things. Removing the basic rationale in the name of "trimming" is a disservice to the reader. Knowledge of the topic, and experience communicating it (to law students, and to clients -- two groups that are very interested in knowing the way things really work) are important to sound judgment.

To summarize all the above, let's be careful to read the entire WP:LENGTH guideline, not single out single sentences. The guideline recognizes competing concerns, and instructs that we are to apply judgment in balancing them. When the guideline uses hortatory language, "should," let's not misquote it as a hard edged limit, nor overlook other sentences, such as "There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized." The MOS is full of analyses that the law calls a "multi factor test" or "totality of the circumstances" -- no single factor is determinative, and it's reversible error to look at one to the exclusion of others, and to not balance all of the competing concerns. Same here.

U.K. vs. U.S. usage -- I'm agnostic. However, before recent edits by Harfarhs and DIYeditor, the article was almost entirely in U.S. usage, with only a few Britishisms (and those in sections that are far more relevant in the U.K. than in the U.S.). The normal convention MOS:ENGVAR is to conform outliers to the near-uniform usage, rather than to force the entire article to swim the Atlantic. But I don't feel strongly enough to push back against anyone that wants to go any one way or another, and converting entirely U.K. makes a certain amount of logical sense. But I can't do that!

Also, periods go inside the quote mark when the period is part of the quote, and it looks like someone in the last week did an indiscriminate brute force "replace all" without reviewing the underlying sources to ensure that edits were correct. The MOS is generally pretty good -- and only becomes bad when some fool picks out single sentences without the balancing that the MOS urges, and does mass edits without specific consideration of specific facts.

DCLawwyer (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

White Wind: In view of certain remarks above, you may wish to take note of the "Update" comment below: 11:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC), and some earlier edits listed above in section "Revision 20-23 October": Definitions: trim and clarify,[10] trimming, rmv unsourced comment/opinion,[11] trimming, rmv unsourced comment/opinion,[12] trim,[13] inline links and minor edits to clarify, and trim[14] trim etc.[15] Among lawyers... - crisper wording,[16] trim and clarify[17] Qexigator (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Qexigator's past edits are so lacking in understanding as to be indistinguishable from bad faith (see discussion throughout this Talk page). His explanations for them demonstrate bad faith conclusively (see section "Which kitchen cookware is black/ blacker/ blackest" in this Talk page). Qexigator's edits were unhelpful when he made them; they would be unhelpful if made by anyone else. They're a good demonstration of the damage that a non-knowledgable editor can do, and they form the basis for my fears of some of L.tak's proposals.

A concurring comment from Coolceasar--

I concur with User:DCLawwyer's critique above, although User:DCLawwyer's points could have been raised in a more civil fashion. User:Qexigator has repeatedly failed to respond to a direct question inquiring as to whether there is any rational justification for a series of severely destructive edits that turned a rambling but mostly intelligible article into an incoherent mess; they appear to be deliberate vandalism and probably warrant an immediate ban from all Wikimedia Foundation projects. This article looked a lot better on 1 October 2017 before User:Qexigator began to drastically rearrange it, and I suggest that the article should be reverted back to its appearance on that date. The consistent evasiveness of User:Qexigator's nonresponse speaks for itself. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that got him to stop was a warning to have him banned, which you can see on Qexigator's Talk page.

Qexigator, the warning still stands. If there's any further action from you, I will (a) go through your Talk archive to assemble the multiple past threats to have you banned, (b) put them all together back on your Talk page, and (c) request action by the admins.

Intelligent people do learn from their past, and don't kick hornets' nests. Qexigator doesn't and does. Draw your own conclusion.

DCLawwyer (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

" ... among the numerous countries having a common law system, the most populous is the US ... " - I think you'll find that honour actually goes to India, and by a considerable margin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well said, but while India may be the more numerous, all the same, it is reasonable, from the point of view of England and the territories settled by colonists from England (such as in Canada, Australia and New Zealand) to use Black's fourfold "definition", given that the article states that "During the drafting of the Indian Constitution, laws from Ireland, the United States, Britain, and France were all synthesized to produce a refined set of Indian laws." and that, by contrast, the article on Fundamental Laws of England quotes South Carolina's Chief Justice William Drayton's 1774 pamphlet: "That the Americans being descended from the same ancestors with the people of England, and owing fealty to the same Crown, are therefore equally with them, entitled to the common law of England formed by their common ancestors..." Qexigator (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Common law. 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/20111122095917/http://www.barbadosparliament.com/the_parliament.php to http://www.barbadosparliament.com/the_parliament.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102153013/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2008/abu_dhabi__as_delivered.pdf to http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2008/abu_dhabi__as_delivered.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628162957/http://xml.lib.hku.hk/gsdl/db/oelawhk/search.shtml to http://xml.lib.hku.hk/gsdl/db/oelawhk/search.shtml

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) 21:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

History: Origins

The article states, "Prior to the Norman Conquest, much of England's legal business took place in the local folk courts of its various counties and hundreds." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that during the Anglo-Saxon period (prior to the Norman Conquest, territories were organized into shires rather than counties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.59.54 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That is so. Done. Qexigator (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Islamic law

This section was added a few years ago. Once several knowledgeable people looked at it, the consensus was that it's baloney. The original author was a crank who had vandalized multiple articles, and ended up getting banned.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Common_law/Archive_5#Medieval_Islamic_law

If it can be supported with reliable sources (the Makdisi article is crap), I (for one) would reconsider.

And the edit history shows once again that Qexigator has no baloney sifter, and no competent judgement.

DCLawwyer (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Given that to date there appears to be little or no other citable source supporting Makdisi's theory, its reappearance in the article may not be acceptable here, even if the information were trimmed to avoid being allowed undue weight. Editors may well agree that the well-known fact that the Inns of the Serjeants-at-law and other common lawyers were in the neighbourhood of the Temple Church does not suffice.

Qexigator (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law

I am trying to clarify this statement, which I found confusing.

Judicial precedent is given less interpretive weight, which means that a judge deciding a given case has more freedom to interpret the text of a statute independently, and less predictably.

My point is that "which" could refer to "Judicial precedent" OR "less interpretive weight". "Which means" is sometimes used to define a part of a sentence, but you are not 100% sure if it is defining "Judicial precedent" (likely) or "less interpretive weight" (less likely, but not impossible).

My first edit totally reversed the meaning, because I thought "Which means" referred to "Judicial precedent" Thanks to BostonBowTie for pointing out my error. Sort of proves it was confusing as stated. This time I am changing "which means" to a separate declarative statement starting with "This means" which refers to the entire previous sentence. If anyone has a better solution, have at it. Bobsd (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Circular definition

The definition in the introduction is that 'common law comes from the system of courts'. But the term "court" is used here to refer to ethnically English courts. The term "common law" is likewise not a universal term, as it would seem to be, rather it is an English language term. Why not just say common law is the ethnically-English term for ethnically-English courts with intrinsic ethnic ties to England, in spite of extreme differences between democracy and monarchy law and courts?-Inowen (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: this article (mostly its lead) is a sort of awkward hybrid between an article on the English (or Anglo-American) common law and a sort of theoretical, abstract common law system in a vacuum. The distinction is interesting philosophically and theoretically, but has no practical use here, because the English term "common law" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the Anglo-American common law system. I've been away from this article for awhile because, sadly, I haven't had enough real world time to devote to substantial editing for the past few months. Most of my edits have been pretty minor stuff lately. I probably won't have time for the foreseeable future, either, I'm sorry to say. I'd really like to work more on this article when I have time.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Law

Any specific reason Jewish law is obfuscated by an awkward tree mixing color chart which somehow ends up coloring the nation in a slightly off-blue (like the rest of Europe)? Can we not just highlight the one country that follows it? Perhaps a cherry bright red or dark bright blue to emphasis the nation that follows such laws?

I'm just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E990:9F:8D49:8913:1061:565F (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Misconceptions

WhiteWhirlwind writes that a section on "misconceptions" is "unnecessary."

In what sense unnecessary? WhiteWhirlwind is apparently unaware of the dozens of times that various misunderstandings have been edited in. Look at dozens of edits by Qexigator, Arrivisto, and FuriouslySerene among other examples. This section has been there for nearly ten years, to explain the misunderstandings, and why they're in error.

In what sense "unencyclopedic?" This section responds to views of a fairly significant number of people (including me before I went to law school), and it's important that these folks understand why those views are incorrect. When stuff gets removed, stuff that reflects sincere beliefs, the authors deserve a sound explanation based on something more than personal taste.

If you don't like it, fix it. I don't think it should be cut.

BostonBowTie (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@BostonBowTie: Whether you (or anyone else) had misconceptions is entirely irrelevant to this article (read the guidelines I posted—WP:NOTEVERYTHING—once again). This article is not a document whose purpose is to correct misconceptions about the common law held by non-lawyers. Rather, like all Wikipedia entries, it is an encyclopedia article that should (but currently doesn't) "summar[ize] the accepted knowledge on a subject."

Applying these principles to the instant issue, the deficiencies are obvious. It begins with a blanket statement about how there are many misconceptions about the common law, but provides no support for this statement whatsoever. Its citations are a mishmash of mostly case references and asides that reek of WP:Original research. I'm challenging this statement, and it's currently completely unverified (WP:Verifiability). I do not see similar sections in the reliable sources that summarize the common law. Their inclusion here is the result of editors' lack of WP:NPOV.  White Whirlwind  咨  03:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@White whirlwind::

Ah, that's different. You've shifted grounds to verifiability and POV. If your concerns are footnoting to a source that states the deprecated view, and redundant footnoting of the current view, that's a fair request, and easy to fix. I'm partially done now, let me know if this is moving in a direction that resolves your concern. If any concern remains, give me a precise set of questions and a few days to answer them.

Except for the initial assertion that "misconceptions exist" everything else was footnoted, sometimes in the very paragraphs you cut, sometimes elsewhere in the article. For example, almost the entire large "not grounded in 'custom' or 'ancient usage'" paragraph is taken as near-direct quote from the Carpenter article. Carpenter was footnoted right there where a footnote ought to be (but to resolve any lingering question, I've over-footnoted Carpenter for you). Almost everything else in the "misconceptions" section is directly footnoted, or else the same proposition is footnoted elsewhere in the article Did you read and think carefully before you acted?

You say "I do not see similar sections in the reliable sources that summarize the common law." Did you look at the Carpenter article? If you had, you would have seen near-direct word-for-word congruence. In fact, this shift from the older view to the newer view is the central thesis of the entire Carpenter paper. Is there any reason you "didn't see" it other than that you didn't look?

And also, of course, the etiquette for raising "verofiability" and "POV" issues is "citation needed" tags, not a hasty, poorly-explained big delete.

Why is this section anything other than one section of "an encyclopedia article that ... [summarizes] the accepted knowledge on a subject?" It starts with an everyday definition held by enough non-lawyers that it ends up in many internet dictionaries. Acknowledging the existence of this lay definition, and then explaining the difference between that lay definition and the specialist definition, seems exactly "encyclopedic." If you have a different view, please explain?

Please explain your assertion for "completely unverified." Before you started, there were 11 footnotes to 7 sources. Nearly every sentence was either directly footnoted, or else supported by the footnote on the next sentence. Please explain?

Please explain your concern for "mostly case references." I see only one direct case cite, to Southern Pacific. The other footnotes cite to seven secondary sources. "Mostly" used in reference to the short end of a 1-to-7 ratio is the kind of bad writing that, in my experience, is symptomatic of bad thinking. Please take more care, and then I won't have to think that of you.

How much time did you spend reading, thinking, verifying, before deleting or writing?

BostonBowTie (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@BostonBowTie: be aware that ad hominem comments (pejoratively referencing "you" or my cognitive abilities rather than my arguments) contravene the provisions of WP:Civility, which is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Try to avoid them in the future. Besides being in poor taste, they usually belie weak arguments (as is the case here).

Now, since my last comments you've added a number of citations, which I'm glad to see. However, their quality leaves much to be desired. The opening sentence is illustrative of the entire section's problems. It makes a broad statement about misconceptions existing in popular culture, and that these are reflected in various examples. However, its source for this assertion is simply one such example. This is a quintessential example of WP:OR, which I referenced earlier and which I recommend re-reading carefully. That sentence is an example of "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources", which is the core of OR. Supporting it would require a verifiable reliable source that "explicitly state[s]" it (WP:SYNTH) — in legal parlance, I take this to mean that the "inferential step" and "analogous" cites in BB Rule 1.2(a) are unacceptable. Your assertion that it is "an everyday definition held by enough non-lawyers that it ends up in many internet dictionaries" is irrelevant and misses the point entirely. I hope this makes your further efforts clearer. I'll leave the other issues until we get understanding here, because they're moot until then.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear @White whirlwind::

I am troubled by several things.

You mention “ad hominem“ attacks. Please look again. I did not use a single declarative sentence connecting “you” to “cognitive abilities.” Every declarative sentence involving “you” refers to an objective act that you took. Those acts could lead a reasonable person to question your cognitive abilities, but that’s entirely your inference from your acts, not an ad hominem attack from me. I did use terms referring to “cognitive abilities” in questions, questions that invited you to consider your own actions, and sought answers that would allow you to demonstrate good faith, knowledge of the topic, and sound reasoning. But I made no declarative sentence.

But let’s move beyond that, to your specific questions. You criticized the opening sentence:

The opening sentence is illustrative of the entire section's problems. It makes a broad statement about misconceptions existing in popular culture, and that these are reflected in various examples. However, its source for this assertion is simply one such example.

The opening sentence was a statement of existence. Existence necessarily flows from one example, without any inference, true? Nonetheless, to meet your concern of “simply one,” I added redundant cites for the false proposition that’s being responded to. I agree in part with your edit of of 01:38, 11 December 2018 to remove them (though I think one should remain). And I think that multiple cites to a false proposition is silly. But they respond to your question. Doesn’t that suggest that perhaps your question was silly? Or else that your writing poorly expressed your question? If you want to delete them again (I’d suggest leaving one), I’m fine with that—but let’s acknowledge that this long list of silly footnotes is there because you asked for them.

You opened the door, and placed your “cognitive abilities” in question. I had asked questions that invited you to demonstrate good faith and sound reasoning, and to separate a good-faith, knowledgeable person, from a person that acts in haste, without reading and thinking first. Those questions are still useful for that purpose, so I’m going to ask them again, and add some follow up questions.

1. Did you look at the Carpenter article before your initial big delete of 20:56, 7 December 2018‎?

2. Do you agree or disagree, that Carpenter supports many of the sentences that you deleted?

3. If you didn’t read the Carpenter article before your initial big delete of 20:56, 7 December 2018‎, what support did you have for your claim of “no support for this statement whatsoever?”

4. The Carpenter article doesn’t use the word “misconception,” but it does state “the orthodox common law theory does not accord with the facts of the origin and growth of the law.” Is that a close enough synonym to satisfy your concern?

5. Is it your view that every sentence has to be footnoted, or would you consider it adequate support to footnote one of several consecutive sentences (typically either the first or the last) that are all supported by the same source?

6. Please explain your assertion for “completely unverified.” Before you started, there were 11 footnotes to 7 sources. Nearly every sentence was either directly footnoted, or else supported by the footnote on the next sentence. The text tracks its sources nearly word-for-word. Please explain?

7. Did you look at any of the other footnoted sources before your big delete of 20:56, 7 December 2018‎? Which ones?

8. Please explain your concern for “mostly case references.” I see only one direct case cite, to Southern Pacific. The other footnotes cite to seven secondary sources. Please explain your use of “mostly” for the short end of a 1-to-7 ratio.

9. What's wrong with "case references?" Cases are often the most reliable source.

10. Did you read the Carpenter article at any time after your big delete and before your edit here of 20:54, 10 December 2018? How much time did you spend on it between those two events?

11. The Carpenter article has been cited by the United States Supreme Court, in Erie v. Tompkins, a case that has been required reading for every American law student since the 1930s. Do you have any reason to believe it's anything less than a reliable source?

I’m asking you to explain choices you made. I’m giving you a chance to explain away the natural inference from your own actions.

As of 13:35, 11 December 2018‎ I’ve fixed the opening sentence in a way that, I think, responds to what I understand (from your less-than-clear writing) to be your concern. Is this where you wanted to go?

Any person of questionable “cognitive abilities” (to use your term) can break stuff. The fundamental proposition of Wikipedia is collaborative search for a solution. I’m trying to take you seriously as an editor, knowledgeable about Wikipedia guideline trivia, to meet your concerns and suggestions. Why don’t you shift your approach. I’ll accept that there are lots of individual sentences in the Wikipedia guidelines that I don’t know, but I am a subject matter expert (I recently gave an invited lecture to the Court of Appeals in D.C., the next speaker on the podium after me was Chief Justice Roberts.). Why don’t you try to align those two skills, instead of starting with the presumption that you’re a white knight riding to the rescue, wielding the sword of the big delete, for your personal taste of “unencyclopedic?”

BostonBowTie (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@BostonBowTie: You continue to miss the point, my friend. You wrote: "Existence necessarily flows from one example, without any inference, true?" That is of course true for the purposes of general logic and rhetoric, but that is not how Wikipedia editing works, as WP:Original Research (one of the three core content policy pages) describes at great length. Its opening paragraph is extremely important (emphases in original):

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. [...] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

We editors never create research or produce our own conclusions here. When making a statement such as "Non-lawyers and other laymen often hold many misconceptions about the common law", a few examples of non-lawyers or laymen holding such misconceptions, prefaced with an appropriate signal, might be sufficient to establish such a proposition in a brief or law review article, but it does not suffice on Wikipedia, because it constitutes original research. To establish such a statement here on Wikipedia, the proper route is a citation to a passage that: 1) directly supports it (e.g. "Misconceptions on the true nature of the common law today abound among laymen" or something to that effect); and 2) which is stated in a verifiable reliable source that is "directly related" to the subject (perhaps in a reputable scholar's treatise/monograph or well-known law review article). The ban on original research and the requirement of the use of verifiable reliable sources, when combined with the "Neutral Point-of-View" policy, form something of a "Holy Trinity" among Wikipedia's content policies. The other issues here are irrelevant until we can solve this one.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear @White whirlwind::

Your answers to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, and 11 should answer any questions you have, or at least allow us to focus on something that moves the ball forward.

To the inference of “cognitive abilities," I think it's fair to add two more inferences: You're just trolling for the sake of trolling, and you don't like to read footnoted sources. It's not helpful to misquote something, and then start an argument over your own misquotation, when the original text says something different, especially when it's been edited to try to track your earlier concerns. Likewise, it's just silly to get off on satellite issues relating to something on the Talk page that you disagree with. Look at the article and the cited sources, and focus your attention there.

Please provide answers to questions 1-11 -- this is now the third request for some of them. They'll help us focus on the issues at hand -- perhaps by showing that there are no issues.

If, after looking at the footnoted references, you think there's a genuine issue with the current text relative to the sources footnoted, then describe it.

BostonBowTie (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@BostonBowTie: It appears I'm not getting through to you. Let me try again:

First, a general comment: your Carpenter article is very poorly cited. You merely duplicate the full citation without any specification whatsoever: no specific page references or pincites. Even a basic school student should have known to include page numbers, and in any case they must be used here on Wikipedia when one cites a book or article (see WP:PAGENUM). Strangely, your citations contain the exact same parenthetical comment for a variety of different statements, which produces nonsensical results.

Second, let me explicitly show you why I chose not to go through your numbered questions by answering the first few. 1) Yes. 2) No. 3) N/A. 4) Of course not: to use that statement to justify the existence of an entire section on potentially inaccurate uses "in popular culture by non-lawyers" in an era more than 100 years after the source's publication boggles all reason. 5) Yes. 6) There could be 100 citations of the kind you used and it would still be "completely unverified" because of their inadequate nature (assuming Bickel is used only for the anti-majoritarian statement, which is very minor and probably not notable). And so on, and so forth.

I found your list somewhat comical because it reads a lot like a set of discovery interrogatories, and the thought of someone doing that on a Wikipedia talk page was quite humorous. I know you're fairly new here, but I would recommend against such methods. By the way, accusing another editor of "trolling" (or implying the distinct possibility) directly contravenes another of Wikipedia's fundamental principles: "Assume good faith." I advise you not to do so, and consider striking out such past comments.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@White whirlwind::

Wait a minute.

• You began this discussion with a big section delete. [18] WP:DISPUTE instructs "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text."
• Your first ratonale was that this section is “unencyclopedic.” You’ve dropped that, apparently conceding that it was unfounded in either WP guidelines or the facts.
• Then it was “completely unverified.” When you started, the section had eleven footnotes to seven sources. To respond to you, I added four footnotes to the one specific sentence of the article you asked about; you removed the footnotes.
• You questioned NPOV and WP:Original Research. I pointed you to the sources that had been footnoted all along, that establish that the divergence between the understanding among professionals and the lay understanding has been around for a century. They don't track word-for-word, but I pointed out synonyms that anyone in the field would recognize, and asked whether those synonyms are close enough for you. It seems you’ve dropped that.
• Now it’s “very poorly cited” and WP:PAGENUM. As we’ll see below, that’s an issue of your less-than-careful reading.

Everybody has to fine-tune positions and explanations as more information comes to light. But only trolls start with a block delete, and then have to change to unrelated positions, four times.

Let’s look at where you are now.

1. WP:PAGENUM states a “should,” not a “must.” If it would assuage your personal preference to add page numbers and be more specific about the parenthetical quotes, be my guest. Since you’re read the article, and much of what’s cited in the article is near-direct quote, it should be a piece of cake. WP:PAGENUM doesn’t state a “must” as a minimum standard for avoiding a block delete. A “should” rule is only the difference between "good enough" and "better," not between "block delete" and "keep."

2. The phrase you point to, “in popular culture by non-lawyers” is footnoted by four modern sources. The 100-year-old paper footnotes an entirely different sentence, for for an entirely different proposition. Any troll can create a dispute by mix-and-mismatching underlying statements like this. And only trolls do.

3. Question 4 asks you to compare two specific pieces of text, to test whether a specific sentence of the footnoted article supports a specific word. Your “answer” to question 4 says nothing about either premise of the question. Any troll can take a precise question designed to narrow issues, and avoid that resolution by going off on tangents. And only trolls do. And then claim to be “boggled.”

4. In your response to question 5, you state your belief that “every sentence has to be footnoted” rather than a single footnote to a common source for consecutive sentences. But neither WP:Verifiability nor WP:CITE say that. In fact, WP:Verifiability says quite the opposite, that propositions must be “verifiable,” not even that they must be footnoted. Neither WP:Verifiability nor WP:CITE call for sentence-by-sentence. You don’t cite anything for your belief. (Might your belief be unverifiable?) To be sure, once there’s a specific challenge, then a footnote must be provided. I’ve asked you for specific challenges; you decline to provide them,

5. Your non-response to questions 8 and 9 suggest that you were just making up rules, and your earlier challenges were based on nothing more than personal taste. Onesy-twosy, it happens. It’s excusable. But when it’s a pattern, the inference of trolling closes in.

6. You write "assuming Bickel is used only for the anti-majoritarian statement, which is very minor and probably not notable." WP:NOTE tells us that "notability" applies to whether "a given topic warrants its own article," and that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." I can't see how notability applies here. When someone purports to be a master of the WP Guidelines, making up a new rules on the fly, that is directly contrary to an explicit rule, is inconsistent with good faith error. The remaining inference is bad faith.

6(a). Your writing is not clear. Perhaps instead of challenging notability of "counter-majoritarian," you're challenging notability of Alexander Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch. Bickel is one of the most influential books on law in the last 60 years written by an academic rather than a judge -- it's been cited over 100 times by courts, 9 by the Supreme Court. If you were challenging "notability" of Bickel, there's no guideline that requires "notability" of a source, and Bickel is one of the most "notable" sources. Your writing is unclear, and maybe you meant something else, so I won't attribute bad faith from this specific point, only bad writing. But this does display your lack of care in writing, and deepens the inference of lack of familiarity with the field.

7. Your answers to the eleven questions are not helpful. The questions are there to probe your position, to see whether there’s a “there there,” and to identify enough specificity that some action becomes possible. If your goal were to obstruct, and avoid providing any analysis that would slot your precise gripe into the Wikipedia rules, and avoid identifying specific supporting facts, then your list of “answers” would be perfect, wouldn’t it. It’s hard to avoid an adverse inference.

Errors of subtle misquotation arise onesy-twosy from anyone. But only trolls make up new rules on the fly as a continuous practice, and only trolls make up stuff that has no grounding whatsoever in the written WP guidelines. Only people that don’t read carefully, and trolls that intentionally misread, can have the record of misquotation you display here.

Of course I started with the assumption of good faith. But assumptions can be rebutted by evidence.

Your own acts have pretty conclusively rebutted. I am now ready to state that inference in a simple declarative sentence. You’re a troll, and the problems you complain of arise out of your own carelessness.

If you want to take positive action to move things along, be my guest. I don't trust you to be accurate, well-reasoned, knowledgeable, or precise in your writing, but I'm willing to to be shown otherwise.

If you want to invoke dispute resolution, the record is now clear enough about who's acting in good faith, and who's just obstructing, misquoting, dissembling, avoiding. Take a look at the article edit history. Even though you won't give a precise diagnosis, I'm doing what I can with the information you provide, to fit the article text to exactly what's in the sources. Show me anything you've contributed to the article or this discussion that shows a similar willingness to find halfway. Please. Start dispute resolution. Go ahead, punk, make my day. The people that seem interested and knowledgeable about law topics include User talk:Coolcaesar, User talk:Famspear, and User talk:BD2412. Be my guest.

I see that for me to start a dispute, my first step is to put the showing of facts on your Talk page. I see it wouldn’t be the first one. That’s my next step if you want to continue the discussion by throwing antiaircraft chaff in the air, and shifting from new issue to new issue to new issue, often with no grounding in the WP Guidelines, without moving the ball forward.

BostonBowTie (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@BostonBowTie: Again, I urge you to refrain from calling other editors names like "punk" and "troll": not only does it belie the weakness of your arguments, it flies in the face of WP:CIVIL. Now, I see that we're getting nowhere here. Your numbered interrogatories aren't helpful: 1) WP:PAGENUM says that page numbers should be used, and further says: "Specify the page number or range of page numbers." Not only is it just kind of lazy editing to not do so, but here, where an editor (namely myself) is challenging the statements in question, it fails to fulfill your editorial burden: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (WP:VERIFY, emphasis in original). This isn't complicated, and most editors have no problems with it. I'm not sure why it's so difficult here. 2) Your statement about "four modern sources" completely ignores my explanation of the original research policy, and so overlooks the fact that those four sources are entirely useless here. Anyway, you don't need to post any facts to my talk page if you're looking for dispute resolution, you can just make a post directly there. This is definitely a situation where outside involve will help.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@White whirlwind::

"Go ahead, punk, make my day" is a reference to popular culture. President Reagan used it several times in the early 1980s. It's not an epithet specific to you.

We've reached a point where your best argument relies on a "should" rule, misquotation, and your refusal to engage with the underlying sources that have been footnoted all along. An article that's good enough to be cited by the Supreme Court isn't good enough for you. I think we can call it a day. Do whatever you think you "should" with page cites. Live it up. Nobody's stopping you. WP:DISPUTE encourages "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text."

Almost everything in this section is a near-direct quote from the specific sources. If you had raised WP:PAGENUM as the first issue, I probably would have done something. If you had demonstrated an effort to isolate specific issues, I would have taken that up. If you have demonstrated any intent to find consensus instead of just bait-and-switch, ignore edits made to meet your questions, misquote sources and the article, ignore issues, obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, I probably would have done something. But you deleted the whole section, and then you give me a shape-shifter bunch of complaints that frequently rely on brazen misquotation, and rules made up out of thin air.

As President Reagan also used to point out, a pile of horse shit doesn't necessarily imply that there's a pony in there somewhere. You've demonstrated pretty clearly that if I address the "should" issue, you'll just come back with the next shovel full.

You accurately quote WP:VERIFY, that the burden is satisfied by "providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." You don't dispute that that's exactly what's there. Instead, you want to change the rules, by rewriting WP:PAGENUM from "should" to "must." "Troll" is the mildest word for that. I'm a big believer in "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." You're way past that threshold.

I can see why you write "Your numbered interrogatories aren't helpful." To your goal of trolling, I agree, they're not helpful at all. To my goal, of digging through the pile of your careless reading, imprecise thinking, and unclear writing, and to try to find out whether there might be a pony under your pile so that if there is, I can do something with it, they're immensely helpful. Even your non-answers were immensely helpful. Breaking a task down into itsy-bitsy bite size subtasks is usually a most helpful approach, and it worked here to disprove existence of a pony, and confirm content of the pile. I completely see why you don't like it. But that's because you had your goal of avoiding precision, not because of a defect in the technique.

BostonBowTie (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that the "misconceptions" section is useful, and should be kept. bd2412 T 15:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Common law is not everything on this page

This article titled Common law is not everything on this page. It is not even the first thing on this page. As a member editor of Wikipedia I motion we consider a drastic restructure of this article. There are many parts that need their own article entries. It is confusing and misleading and does not reflect what Common law is. This is open invitation to discuss changes to this article, anyone with personal interests in this article is encouraged to respond on this discussion. If no comments are offered, a gentle restructure will be initiated, beginning with putting Common law in the lead paragraph. Then a soft move of items not related to common law into their appropriate article pages or request of new article pages will be suggested. Please comment on this issue as Common law does not need to be, nor is it this confusing. Suijur, sui juris 09:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Please let us know in brief whether or not your understanding of Common Law systems, historically originating in the law of England and then taken to the British colonies, is reflected in anything in the lead, and would be retained if your proposed revision goes ahead. Qexigator (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This is my understanding and yes. It is also my understanding of article style to summarize in the lead giving the following sections, properly titled to the content. Suijur, sui juris 13:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot the edit summary, to include references. Suijur, sui juris 14:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. So far so good. Perhaps you would now place here your proposed revised lead, on the assumption that the main body will be revised in such a way that the lead and body will be mutually compatible. Qexigator (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It is refreshing to see concordance, as we approach a mutual design for this article. The main body yet remains a bit intimidating at least for myself, so I would hope for support as I am told articles do not belong to any one editor but a body of various editors that put together a good article. When a part of the lead paragraph, redone as per the style manual, that associated body content will also be put in its proper perspective as well. While this seems an easy statement, the actual performing of the feat may prove daunting. Like I mentioned earlier, small changes first so as not to disrupt what has been accomplished so far. Suijur, sui juris 03:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Suijur:

Before you do anything else, please consult the dictionaries that are footnoted on the first sentence. Before you do anything else, explain whether you agree or disagree with those specific dictionary definitions. If you disagree, please explain your disagreement, and why your opinion is more sound than, for example, the current edition of Black's dictionary, and the current Garner's dictionary of usage.

I notice your source is https://thelawdictionary.org/common-law. Look at the top of the page. thelawdictionary.org is based on Black's Law Dictionary Second Edition (the current edition is the Tenth). The second edition was published in 1910. The 19th century definition was passing out of use at the time, and was pretty much totally discarded by the 1930s (much like the phlogiston theory of propagation of light). The pre-19th century history, and the 20th century transition and changed understanding is explained in the article. Read the entire article (especially the section on "Misconceptions and imprecise nonlawyer usages") and the Talk archives carefully -- that may save you a lot of time.

The article reflects a consensus of many lawyers. The consensus has been there for about a decade. Before you do anything significant, consider whether your level of expertise is great enough to displace that long-stable consensus.

BostonBowTie (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I yield. Fear no more from me. Suijur, sui juris 05:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out TheLawDictionary. I added a footnote to the article which hopefully will head off future confusion. You might want to write to the editors of TheLawDictionary.org to point out that their entry is obsolete, and that they might do well to update their dictionary based on this article. Thanks for your participation, and making it easy for us all to learn from each other. BostonBowTie (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Qexigator's edits February-March 2019

@Qexigator::

Among lawyers, “common law” and “precedent” are synonyms. The understanding that they’re synonyms can be seen in many cases, where judges switch back and forth fluidly between the two terms, in a way that shows they consider them synonyms. E.g., Habyarimana v. Kagame, 696 F.3d 1029, 1032 (10th Cir., 2012); Bloom v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 41 F.3d 911, 915-916, 915-16 n.5 and n.6 (3rd Cir., 1994); United States v. Grimes, 413 F.2d 1376, 1378 (7th Cir., 1969); Banks v. Int'l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967 (V.I., 2011) (Hodge, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands).

Qexigator, your error in this particular edit is pretty small, compared to the thorough displays of ignorance and bad faith in February 2018, August-to-November 2017, and June 2016. (Who edits a dictionary definition from the standard dictionary in the field, twice, out of no more than personal disagreement with that dictionary? Who does that? With what possible good faith explanation?)

Today, the big error is the reason you gave: “not supported by … ordinary English language grammar” If there’s anything clear from your own explanations of past error in these Talk pages, it’s that your personal opinion of “ordinary English” is neither helpful nor relevant in an article directed to the precise usage in the profession. This much should be clear from three years of history:

• The article is about the precise meaning and operation of common law today, as it is actually applied by modern lawyers and judges. It’s not about lay notions, lay meanings, lay misunderstandings, and obsolete definitions that passed out of currency 100 years ago.
• No editor of sound mind edits from personal lack of familiarity. Your lack of familiarity the way the law works, and lack of knowledge of meanings of terms as used within the legal profession, is not a helpful basis for editing.

There are a number of terms that have specific meanings in a specific field. "Rent” in economics is different than “rent” in “ordinary English.” “Field” means something very different in mathematics vs. “ordinary English.” You wouldn’t consider editing these technical terms based on “ordinary English,” and your edits here based on “ordinary English” are just as retrograde.

The thing I find most striking in your edits and your Talk page discussion of the errors in those edits is your unwillingness to learn. We all start out in a state of ignorance. Most of us try to learn. You actively resist.

Could you please confine your editing to the section where your personal views and “ordinary English” are helpful and relevant, Misconceptions and imprecise nonlawyer usages. That’s what that section is there for. For the rest of the article, please discontinue your edits based on Argument from ignorance.

BostonBowTie (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Qexigator:::

A few days later, I followed up a second one of your edits, [19] says “(+ unbold)” You refer to no provision of MOS or any other basis.

MOS:BOLDLEAD says otherwise – synonyms should be bolded in the first sentence. MOS gives two examples:

Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. (Mumbai)

The International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP), also known as the Petrucci Music Library after publisher Ottaviano Petrucci, is a ... (International Music Score Library Project)

The synonyms in the opening sentence have been bolded for many years. [20] Why do you feel the need to disrupt a consensus that reflects MOS?

Qexigator, where do you get this Messianic view that everyone else that’s worked on this article must be wrong, and that you must swoop in and change anything you can get your hands on? Almost every single one of your edits to this article over the last three years have been outright error, either on the substance of “common law” or on style Talk conversation May 2016, June 2016, second conversation June 2016, discussion of Qexigator's degrade of November 2017, second conversation from November 2017. You’ve wasted weeks of others’ time substituting your personal views and your disagreement with the current edition of Black’s Law Dictionary (the most-cited legal dictionary in the U.S.). Continued discussion from November 2017 Further continued discussion from November 2017

If you have a good faith explanation for your tenacity in disrupting long-established consensus, promoting your personal and often-unsourced views to erase references to current and most-respected sources, and defiance of the MOS, please offer it.

Else please stop.

BostonBowTie (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fully concur with User:BostonBowTie's cogent points as presented above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"Common law legal systems in the present day listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Common law legal systems in the present day. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND IS THE LAW!

BLACK LAW DICTIONARY or THE LAW AS WRITTEN ?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=22.2.&lawCode=CIV

CA CIVIL CODE - CIV DEFINITIONS AND SOURCES OF LAW ( Heading added by Stats. 1951, Ch. 655, in conjunction with Sections 22, 22.1, and 22.2. ) 22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.

(Added by Stats. 1951, Ch. 655.)

Part of "COMMON LAW" is the prevention of JUDGE being a PROSECUTOR http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=26500.&lawCode=GOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Qudsi (talk • contribs) 00:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

CA GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV 26500. The district attorney is the public prosecutor, except as otherwise provided by law. The public prosecutor shall attend the courts, and within his or her discretion shall initiate and conduct on behalf of the people all prosecutions for public offenses. (Amended by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1094.)

IT IS ANNOYING to be told that THE LAW is not what is shown on the LAW book! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Qudsi (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Al.Qudsi -- The California statute you point to is called a "reception statute." It applies a the time it is adopted, and thereafter, it becomes less and less relevant. The article on Reception statute and the section of this article on "misconceptions" might be helpful to you.BostonBowTie (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Al.Qudsi -- just to follow up a little further -- if you looked up a proposition of physics or biology in a 1951 source, you wouldn't be "annoyed" if it were no longer true. Correct? At least the laws of physics stay constant; the changes you'd find would reflect changes of understanding. But law changes. Note that the text you point to creates a carveout for "laws of this State." Those laws change. So what may have been "common law" at some past time isn't necessarily the law of the State of California today. BostonBowTie (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You are not convincing me!

I was a biology major/pre med student! I also know physics, and math... etc.. I am also a COMPUTER SCIENCE EXPERT! I also studied SOME LAW! Logic and knowledge are not a problem!

I do understand the concepts of LAW in General and the American Law as intended by The Founders!

To compare the "laws" of biology to a law by which a state is prosecuting law is...well not up to par!

The "reception statute" does not apply either! We have in this case a whole NETWORK of.. to use COMPUTER LINGO.. "POINTERS" from one section to another! And if one depends on the other and suddenly you come and say: "this one... I don't care much about it!" then you collapse the whole system! It's is does not make sense and it UNLAWFUL towards the LIBERTY SEEKING INDIVIDUAL! And if the LAW CHANGES it has to show on the PAPER - BLACK ON WHITE!

There a MAXIM OF LAW that if a law is not clear enough - to be understood in one way only! - it is NULL AND VOID! And that is THE ONLY WAY LAWS CAN BE APPLIED without the whims of some IDIOTS who try to play and twist the LAW & CONSTITUTION!

In most recent case I went to court - same LYING COP TYPE, and same CORRUPT JUDGE! When I place the LAW IN THIER FACE THEY JUST IGNORE IT! Now, as you may know, there a PLAINTIFF and a DEFENDANT in a CRIMINAL CASE ! And they tell me a traffic "ticket" is a CRIMINAL CASE! The term PLAINTIFF means THE INJURED PARTY! So when I asked who were these people named as "INJURED PARTIES" (plaintiffs) The CORRUPT JUDGE said there are no INJURED PARTIES! SO how come I am guilty of a crime? There IS NO CRIME!

Don't try to to convince me - I am not an idiot! The idiots are those who JUSTIFY JUDICIAL & GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION !

• • • • • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Qudsi (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Al.Qudsi:

I agree, it would be fruitless to try to convince you. I disagree with your stated basis for not trying to convince you.

Note that I did not compare natural laws to legal laws (in the sense of drawing similarities). I contrasted them, to point out the differences. It seems that the contrast went past you. Once you missed that turn in the road, the rest of your explanation is just going further and further down the road of error. If you resist the basic idea that laws change, well, that's one symptom of the underlying etiology of non-convinceability. I'll just point you to your own use of the "i" word, and suggest again the section of this article on interactions among multiple bodies of law and, especially, the section on "misconceptions".

BostonBowTie (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Jurisprudence is the only actual law in common law countries but they are obligated to follow legislation and constitutions (written or not). —DIYeditor (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In a very practical sense, that's exactly the case. Trenchant observation. BostonBowTie (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)