Talk:R v R

New article

Just so people know, I intend to write an article to fit in this gap, and will then remove the redirect. Alright with everyone? Pascal (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:R v R/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 04:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Quite clear and straightforward, really.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fine
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The final quotation in the "House of Lords judgment" segment needs a reference, but it's entirely obvious from context that's exactly what's being depicted there.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nose noted.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None identified with Earwig's tool.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Appropriate.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Appropriate.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Appropriately dispassionate discussion of a volatile, emotion-laden subject.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There's only the one coat of arms, and I don't suspect we'll get more. About the only thing I can think to add would be Henry Keith, Baron Keith of Kinkel or Geoffrey Lane, Baron Lane but neither has one in his article either.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing it with my single tweak. Excellent work.

First read through

Actually, since the missing citation was pretty obvious and the only thing needed to sign off on the article, I've just gone ahead and added it. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I understand that in English case names, R is usually short for "Regina" (or "Rex") and is thus pronounced "Crown". In this case one of the Rs is the defendant (or more precisely the appellant), so it would be pronounced "R" instead. But which one? Is it "Crown and R" or "R and Crown"? I would guess the latter since this is an appeal? Hairy Dude (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's as in The Crown vs R (The letter R being used as a substitute for the defendant's real name because of the nature of the case). It's a continuation of the original charge and court case, which is where R v R originated. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

As you can see here, The Crown comes first as the origin of the initial case but the appellant has "(appellant)" after his name in official reports to show that R brought the case and Brown (example) is appealing against the judgement of that case. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

CJPOA 1994

The article currently reads:

The judgment in R v R was supported by the Law Commission and was later confirmed in statute law by an amendment to the Sexual Offences Act in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

The section alluded to reads:

142 Rape of women and men.

For section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape of a woman) there shall be substituted the following section—

"1 Rape of woman or man.
(1) It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another man.

(2) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and

(b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.

(3) A man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband.

(4) Subsection (2) applies for the purpose of any enactment."

(1) is the same as the section before it was amended. (2) doesn't repudiate the assumption of consent in marital cases. (3) is not about marital rape, but about sex between a man and a woman who is not his wife. So how exactly does this "confirm" the abolition of the marital rape exemption? Hairy Dude (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

• This article has a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs
• The article relies upon block quotes, which should instead be summarised.

Is anyone willing to work on this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"R v R (Rape: marital exemption)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect R v R (Rape: marital exemption) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10 § R v R (Rape: marital exemption) until a consensus is reached. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

R v R

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The article contains many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The article also relies too heavily on block quotes, which make the text harder to read. This would be better if it was summarised as prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delist: This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, there's tons of OR, and it would need to be completely rewritten and then go through a new GA review to ensure it's up to GA standards. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep I did have my concerns when the content in question was added but sadly I neglected to act on it and it snowballed from there. I have taken the BOLD move to remove all of the Primary and unsourced additions and restored it back to what it was prior to all these being added. So now its much closer to what it was when it was passed for GA status. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts and Z1720: does the above resolve your concerns? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. Refs 1,2,3, and 5 are all primary sources. Refs 4 and 6 are broken links. There's a lack of secondary source discussion, whih means this article does not cover major aspects of the case. Additionally, the History section has only one secondary source citation (ref 4) and the Judgment section is entirely sourced to the judgment itself, which in my view (and other editors at WP:LAW) is OR. I would almost certainly quickfail this article if it were brought to GAN today. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added some more sources and attached archive copies for broken links. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Voorts see above (it would be useful if you two could ping each other). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@The C of E & @AirshipJungleman29: This is unfortunately still not GA quality (and looking at the reviewed version, I don't think it should have been promoted to begin with; at best, this article is C-class).

Refs 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 11 are primary sources. Refs 2 and 6 are from Lawteacher.net, an essay-writing service for students. Ref 2 has the following disclaimer at the top of the article:

Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. View examples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative.

Ref 4 is about Indian law, and doesn't mention R v R. Ref 8 mentions the case in a single sentence on page 49, not page 50, and is largely about another case. Refs 9 and 12 each contain paragraph(s) about the case and are reliable.

This is an important case in British law. I would expect a GA article to have several citations to law review articles and other scholarly works, not references to primary sources, an essay-writing service, an article and a book that are not about the case, and a few paragraphs in two reliable books. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential sourcing

I was meaning to participate in the above GARA, but didn't get around to it. Instead, I've tried to work out possible sourcing to improve the article. I might find time to do so at some point, but in case I don't, here are some decent sources that could be used. (The citations templates may need a little careful work before use in the article as they're roughly exported from Zotero.)

• Laird, Vanessa (1992). "Reflections on R v R". The Modern Law Review. 55 (3): 386–392. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.1992.tb00919.x. ISSN 0026-7961. Retrieved 2024-12-11.
  • also available on JSTOR (which is on WP:TWL). In particular, this may be useful in sourcing the development of the case law through the 1949 Clarke case which started the "exemption to the exemption". It also goes into the nitty-gritty of the statutory interpretation.
• Hasday, Jill Elaine (2000). "Contest and Consent: A Legal History of Marital Rape". California Law Review. 88 (5): 1373. doi:10.2307/3481263. ISSN 0008-1221. JSTOR 3481263. Retrieved 2024-12-11.
  • (JSTOR, thus WP:TWL) This article traces the historical background of marital rape, but (as is fairly common for American law review articles) does not trace the developments in England in any detail.
• Jerrard, Rob (1992). "Marital Rape". Police Journal. 65 (4): 340–343.
  • Available on HeinOnline (via WP:TWL), provides some background for the 20th century case law, and the current decision.
• Graham Virgo in the Cambridge Law Review - Marital Rape—The Fast Or Slow Track to Law Reform? (CambridgeCore, via WP:TWL)
• Hunt and Travis, "The road to R v R: How feminist campaigners abolished the marital rape exemption" [2024] 3 CrimLR 154 - available on Westlaw
• Law Commission - Criminal Law: Rape within Marriage (LC205, LCCP116, CP116)

I had a fairly good look and didn't find much else. Current practitioner and student textbooks do not have substantive discussions.

I have a few points to add to the GARA discussion: LawTeacher is now an essay mill service of extremly dubious quality, but it was once a website of marginally less dubious quality. I've removed a lot of citations to it - at some point, we need to wholly replace all citations to it. Also the Swartz et al. article is of close to zero value and is published in a journal that's... well, it's on Beall's List.

(Pinging the participants in the GARA, in case anyone is interested in having a stab - @Voorts, @The C of E, @AirshipJungleman29, @Z1720.) —Tom Morris (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)