Talk:Common law/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Lead sentence

I dislike the lead sentence "Common law is a third branch of law,[4] in contrast to and on equal footing with statutes which are adopted through the legislative process, and regulations which are promulgated by the executive branch." I would not consider common law a "branch" but rather a "source" of law. And why third? Third in importance? Third historically? Not really! In the context of English law, the phrase "regulations which are promulgated by the executive branch" is misleading, suggesting that the executive (in England, that is the PM, cabinet & their departments) passes the laws. It doesn't! Even if a minister is empowered by statute (say, the Prison Act) to make regulations (say, the Prison Rules), those regulations still have to be laid before parliament which has the sole legislative prerogative. And common law is NOT on an equal footing with statute law; it is subservient to it. And where do Orders in Council fit? A "fourth branch? A rewrite beckons! Arrivisto (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the phrase "on equal footing" in the article is intended to mean that a common law rule and a statutory rule are on equal footing to the extent that the common law rule has not been repealed by statute. At least, that's how it works in the United States today.

The term "subservient" may not be precisely the right term, but I think I know what you mean. When you say common law is "subservient" to statutory law, I assume that you mean that a new statute can be enacted that modifies or even completely repeals a point of old common law. The two are on an equal footing, but only in the same way that two statutes in the same jurisdiction are generally on an equal footing -- unless the two statutes are in conflict. If the two statutes conflict (and simply cannot be reconciled), the more recent statute might be interpreted by a court to be a repeal of the earlier statute. In the same way, a statute on an equal footing with a common law rule may be said to repeal the common law if the statute and the common law are in conflict. In this discussion, I'm referring to old common law rules that are older than the statutes. Famspear (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, not being British, I did not realize that regulations are laid before Parliament. Under the U.S. legal system, regulations (administrative laws promulgated by the executive branch of government) are not generally submitted to the legislature (which is the Congress in the case of the national government and a state legislature in the case of a state). Famspear (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Arrivisto--

Over the last three days, your edits to the introduction, while well meaning I’m sure, introduced a lot of entropy. So I tried to identify those of your edits that seemed appropriate for an introduction (for example, your concern for the term “third” and your cite to the All England Reports), and backed out the rest.

First, while a lot of your information is interesting, it simply doesn’t belong in the introduction. This article is titled “common law,” not "history of common law" or "general mechanisms of common law systems." For example, your discussion on the interactions between common law and all the other things that are not common law (constitutional law, Acts of Parliament, subordinate legislation, delegated legislation, and city councils) is certainly interesting, but it’s the kind of background compare-and-contrast that doesn’t belong in the introduction. There’s a whole separate section for this kind of thing, “Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law” and another long section on "History." Many of your observations would fit well there?

Second, I find it troubling that in doing your edit you removed cites to the two sources that (at least in the U.S.) are the probably the most authoritative. That removal, in turn, led you to refocus the introduction from the “most common” usage of the term to a secondary usage. That doesn't make sense as a matter of pedagogy.

Let's take a look at some of the sources that give the "common law as body of law" definition as the first, or "most common" definition. This definition is given as the first definition in most modern legal dictionaries, is characterized as the “most common” usage among legal professionals, and is the usage frequently seen in decisions of courts (see the quote from U.S. v. Texas in the article):

• Blacks’ law dictionary, current edition, definition 1: ”1. The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions; [synonym] CASE LAW [contrast to] STATUTORY LAW.” (Black's, current edition, is unquestionably the single most authoritative legal dictionary among professionals in the U.S.)

• Bryan Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, "In modern usage, common law is contrasted with a number of other terms. … [P]erhaps most commonly within Anglo-American jurisdictions, common law is contrasted with statutory law" (Bryan Garner has a monthly column on legal writing in the Journal of the American Bar Association-—the largest organization of lawyers in the world thinks he’s the single best person to fill two pages of its magazine every month. Garner coauthored two books on reading and writing law with Justice Antonin Scalia.)

The phrase “common law system” is derivative of, named for, “common law” (in the sense of law that originates from judges rather than legislatures). Doesn’t it make sense to define “common law” (in its most common usage) in the first paragraph, and then explain “common law system” and the contrast to “civil law” in the second? Does it even make sense to contrast to civil law, before explaining what common law is? Removing the first, most common definition, and the cites to this definition, before leaving only the second, seems--well--odd.

You’re allowed to dislike a word or a sentence. But if the sentence basically quotes the "most common" defintions from the most relied-on sources in the field, wouldn't it make sense to follow those sources? Before you remove cites to the most relied-on sources and rewrite the entire introduction, wouldn't it be appropriate to task you with finding other modern sources relied on among professionals, that are as authoritative as Black's and Garner, that go in a different direction?

Fully concur with the critiques above of Arrivisto's edits. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2017 (UT

Editor 50.169.56.27, Your wholesale reversion of my edits seems to me retrograde, and your comments above are so lengthy it is hard to know where to begin. So how about the beginning? "your edits to the introduction, while well meaning I’m sure, introduced a lot of entropy." Entopy? Really? I rather thought it introduced clarity and precision. "while a lot of your information is interesting, it simply doesn’t belong in the introduction. " I disagree; and the justifications you give do not cohere.. The statement that "(Black's Law Dictionary is the main legal dictionary used among legal professionals in the U.S.)" may be true, but needs citation; and anyway, so what? There are several good law dictionaries, and it is OTT to treat Black's as something special. Being English, I consider that the page is currently too US-based; and the excision of the paragraph beginning "The classic exemplar is England... " would underline that. I received WP thanks for some of my edits, so I am not ploughing a lonely furrow. I will wait for further comments, but I intend to return to make the article less cumbersome and more succinct, more readable and more interesting. Arrivisto (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Common law

Qexigator, is your note “common law not aka judicial precedent or judge-made law, per article or otherwise RS” met by the cites to Black's (current edition) and to Garner?

50.169.56.27 (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No. I was aware of those cites, which actually support not. Qexigator (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

+ For the avoidance of doubt: The "Common Law" article in the print edition of the 1950 Encyclopædia Britannica (by J. H. Morgan, Hon.Adviser to American War Crimes Commission, Emeritus Prof. of Costitutional Law in the University of London) concluded "...in the language of Mr Justice O.W.Holmes 'the life of the law is not logic but experience.' The Pilgrim Fathers took it with them to America, even as they took English speech, with the result that it is the foundation of the law of the United States and nowhere has it been more admirably studied." The works cited included Blackstone, O.W.Holmes, and F.W.Maitland. Maitland had been the writer of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article "English Law".[1] The 1911 article stated (Wikisource[2]): 'The term “common law ” was being taken over from the canonists by English lawyers, who used it to distinguish the general law of the land from local customs, royal prerogatives, and in short from all that was exceptional or special. Since statutes and ordinances were still rarities, all expressly enacted laws were also excluded from the English lawyers' notion of “the common law.” ' moved to this subsection Qexigator (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain. Here's the quote from the current edition of Black's Dictionary:

• Blacks’ law dictionary, current edition, definition 1: ”1. The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions; [synonym] CASE LAW [contrast to] STATUTORY LAW.” (Black's, current edition, is unquestionably the single most authoritative legal dictionary among professionals in the U.S.)

Black's states plainly that CASE LAW is a synonym for "common law." That's what ALL CAPS means.

The term "common law" has other definitions, and has a history, which your excerpt point to. But nothing in your excerpt contradicts Black's; your excerpt merely elaborates that additional information exists as well.

Could you explain precisely why Black's definition 1 is anything other than a "reliable source?" Without an explanation that genuinely confronts the source -- rather than diverting attention elsewhere -- your revert appears to have no rational connection to any Wiki guideline.

Since the IP asks: case law is very obviously not a synonym in a normal sense of that word, and it is not known how any lexicographer could have found any knowledgeable writer's usage to vouch for it. It looks like something from a student's garbled notes of a lecture. I see no reason to disrespect the Encyclopaedia Britannica articles written by obviously authoritative writers. Black is either not fully and exactly reproduced by the IP above, or it is the Black editor's (current edition) inept attempt to explain that Common law is the law that has been developed from the thirteenth century to the present day, by case law or precedent, by judges in Common Law Courts or courts of similar jurisdiction, stated in decisions that decide individual cases but have precedential effect in future cases, initially in England, and taken by settlers from England to North America, Australia and New Zealand. It could be the result, not of a lapse on the lexicographer's part, but of a sub-editor who cut some words from the lexicographet's Common law entry to save space. The History of Common Law is not the same as The History of Case Law or The History of Precedent, but the two latter could be chapter titles of the first. Qexigator (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel this article has lost it way. It is overlong, wordy, somewhat inaccessible, and littered with unsubstantiated puffery, (e.g. "unquestionably the single most authoritative ...", "a short volume ... which remains a classic in the field." etc). It needs considerable pruning and a creative effort to make it succinct.. Arrivisto (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That is so, Arrivisto, but in a way that will be acceptable to persons sufficiently knowledgeable of the subject in respect of the development of the Common Law first in England up to Blackstone's work, and in the next period up to the merger of the Common Law Courts and the Court of Chancery in 1890s England, and the development from 18c. in the judicial systems of North America and Australia and New Zealand. Qexigator (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Striking -- the two most respected current dictionaries in American law "look like something from a student's garbled notes of a lecture."

The article has a number of footnoted dictionaries, and several block quotes from U.S. Supreme Court decisions that use "common law" as a synonym for "case law."

It doesn't help to misquote the question or divert attention from the relevant issue. The 1950 Encyclopaedia Britannica may well be a reliable source (th3 1950 date makes it suspicious, and next time I'm at a library, I will look at the current edition, but for now let's say that the 1950 edition is indeed reliable). But that's irrelevant. The question is, why do you challenge Black's 10th Ed. as a reliable source? If it's reliable, and it states "CASE LAW" is a synonym for common law, then that's that, isn't it? Sure, there are other definitions of "common law" as well, but I don't see a plausible challenge to the reliability of Black's 10th Ed.

Striking.

22:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.56.27 (talk)

+ Arrivisto: See also discussions Common law is not case law at Talk:Common law/Archive 4. Common Law versus Case Law at Talk:Common law/Archive 5, Intro at Talk:Common law/Archive 6, Proposal at Talk:Common law/Archive 7. It seems IP's comment above implies that after more than six centuries "Common law" has changed in some relevant way at some (unspecified) time after 1950! Qexigator (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead sentence, "Common law is law developed from the thirteenth century to the present day, by case law or precedent, by judges, courts, and tribunals, stated in decisions that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential effect on future cases" just doesn't make sense. I earlier rewrote the lead to mean something, but it was (of course) reverted! So I'm tempted to leave this page to fester for a while.

Arrivisto, please be explicit, and make a positive proposal. What the sentence states is correct: what rewording would you propose as an improvement? Qexigator (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Arrivisto's revision of second sentence[3] (16 March) is an improvement on the current version of that sentence. Qexigator (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

In response to the advice, "That is so, Arrivisto, but in a way that will be acceptable to persons sufficiently knowledgeable of the subject in respect of the development of the Common Law", in my defence, may I observe that I've been studying and teaching the common law for nearly 50 years! Arrivisto (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If we can come to a consensus around "Arrivisto's revision of second sentence [4] (16 March)" well, I can work with that. I corrected it for singular-plural agreement, verb tense, and the like. I don't see a substantive difference from the other text "stated in decisions that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential effect on future cases," but heck, if the longer sentence makes you both happy, I don't have a problem with it.

Are we agreed that definition 1 of given most often in recent dictionaries for professionals are the best starting point? And if not, why not?

50.169.56.27 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The answer to IP is no, for reasons given above. Qexigator (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Custom

This sentence "Any definition that refers to a past time, "ancient usage," or "custom" as a definitional characteristic leads away from understanding. Among the numerous counterexamples are the following. " sounds a bit unencyclopedic hence the rollback. But maybe it's not a problem, just looked that way on first read Zymurgy (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

common law as a foundation for commercial economies

This section contains the sentence "On the other hand, some other jurisdictions have sufficiently developed bodies of law so (wouldn't such be an improvement on so?) that parties have no real motivation to choose the law of a foreign jurisdiction (for example, England and Wales, and the state of California) but not yet so fully developed that parties with no relationship to the jurisdiction choose that law" This seems to imply that the law of England and Wales is less developed than that of New York. This seems a little surprising, is it true? If it is true then surely the preceding sentence "Because of its history as the United States commercial center, New York common law has a depth and predictability not (yet) available in any other jurisdictions of the United States" should end with "in any other jurisdiction in the world"

Good point. The wording is probably a misstatement, perhaps resulting from misreading or poor paraphrase, or taken out of context purporting to be based on cited source. It's been there for yonks[5] and unsourced for much of that time.[6] Qexigator (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Common law countries on map red or pink?

Are common law more red or more pink? What about mixed systems?

With this edit SmokeyJoe changed the map legend for common law countries from red to pink. It looks distinctly red, albeit pastel, and not pink to me (on both IPS and TN displays). My color picker is showing the common law countries as #F1999A. HTML pink is #FFC0CB, with lightpink (#FFB6C1) hotpink (#FF69B4) and deeppink (#FF1493) all showing significantly lower levels of green than blue. Without the deficit in green the color does not have a genuinely pinkish look. On the other hand the "mixed systems" (common + civil) color #E5A5EF has a decidedly pink look with a green deficit. If you look at the table at [7] the common law countries color would fall approximately second from the bottom in the first column - the red column. It's a light red with a very slight green deficit - not enough to call pink by any means; it looks red. With the other clearly pink looking color in the map for mixed systems I think it is very confusing to call the light red a pink. Input appreciated. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Pink" is close, and there is no other pink in the image. It definitely is not "red". . --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly, decidedly does not look like the color on the left but does look like a light version of the color on the right. I think we will need some other eyes on this. The magenta/pink color for Napoleonic+Common is much more "pink" looking so that is confusing. I would call the color in question "coral" which is a red. Not meant in the least to be rude, but are you positive you don't have any color blindness? I'm pretty sure I do not and have just taken an online test to confirm. This (#F1999A) is like lightcoral (#F08080) on [8], a list of reds. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I am definitely not color blind. Despite it not looking a very good match for MS Paint's "pink", for me is is passable as a pink and not passable as red. I don't get #F1999A, but get #FF9A9A, every time. It is close to 40% red, which to me is "pink", although there are many shades of pink, far less definitive that "red". I agree, on a better look, Sudan and Pakistan are also reasonably called "pink", perhaps are better called pink. Lightcoral is not a very recognisable colorname, and the color is not very bold. I made a quick attempt to change the color to red, but there is edge shading that makes this non-trivial. The image would better serve the article of the common law countries were colored more boldly than the other countries not being talked about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

      • 

      • You are right that it is #FF9999 (I was selecting from the commons image page in the web browser which may have some filter - or the tool i was using is broken). With that in mind I all the more think #FF9999 is a coral and does not have the deficit in green (or lighter color) that makes something look pink. As far as changing it which seems to be the best solution, it is easy enough to globally change the color since it is uniform throughout (change to colormap mode instead of RGB). I have gone ahead and done so and uploaded to a new file name since the map is used for quite a number of articles other than common law. Is this adequately red for you to be comfortable with "red" and is it clear enough? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The red version ok in itself, and avoids "pink" problem. Qexigator (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support "pink": Of the 35 colours shown at Category:Shades of pink,[9] the nearest looks like simply Pink, and may be close to that Carnation p., Lavender p.. and Salmon p., and there is a range of further variants at Shades of pink. To my mind (and eye), the simplest name to use for the chart is "Pink". Qexigator (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

...but red version ok.Qexigator (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support "pink": red is really a bad colour choice for two reasons: 1) it's very vivid in contrast with the other colours in the map; 2) it is very bad for colour-blinded people. B.Lameira (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The question being answered above was whether the existing color (the one in the middle) should be called pink since it had been labeled red but was not clearly so. As far as the current map it was at SmokeyJoe's suggestion that I made the color more vivid precisely so it would stand out because the "coral" color did not. I did not change the original map but instead made a special map just for Common law. For color blindness, according to this color tool red is appropriate to use mixed with pastels and blue. I believe what should be avoided is contrasting red with green since that is the most common color blindness. Wouldn't pink, or coral, have the same issues? —DIYeditor (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"Scotland shares the Supreme Court... the Court's decisions are binding throughout the UK for civil cases"

My understanding is that this is incorrect as the court sits not as an all-UK court but as a court of the jurisdiction from which a case has arisen. When dealing with a Scottish case it uses Scots Law, when dealing with an English case it uses English Law. While legal points are sometimes borrowed in both directions, the varying legal principles (such as the different recognition of precedent) of the two systems would seem to make it unlikely (if not impossible) that two cases arising from both jurisdictions could be treated as identical. MBRZ48 (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. The position is better stated in "Law of the United Kingdom": The United Kingdom does not have a single legal system...The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the highest court in the land for all criminal and civil cases in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and for all civil cases in Scots law. Qexigator (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

rmv "Historical meanings, misconceptions, and imprecise lay usages"

The section with the above heading is composed in a way that is more essay-like than encyclopedic. It is mainly comment or opinion, partly polemical, attributed to or based on the writings and opinions of O.W.Holmes Jr. (1841-1935), the respected US legal theorist and 'one of the most widely cited United States Supreme Court justices', and on other US sources. It stems from an IP in January 2017[10] If there is a place for it in a Wikipedia article, maybe that would be Law of the United States, but not this one. It is certainly WP:UNDUE here, and the article as a whole would be improved without it. Qexigator (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Revising " "Basic principles ..." section

The section "Common law adjudication" is wordy without being clear, and where it does not state what is better stated elsewhere in the article, it is inconsistent. The article will be improved by removing it. The rest of the section "Basic principles of common law" is almost entirely about common law development in United States jurisdictions, and the article would be improved if it was so named, and what is not US moved to some better place. Qexigator (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision 20-23 October

Here is a summary of the series of revisions done 20-22 Oct.[11] to improve the presentation of the article's content, mainly by trimming, and with some inline links added. Prominence is given 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[12]) will be from there.

• Medieval English common law: statutes binding on royal justices made in England before CCP formed in 13c. and Parliament dates from 13c.[13]
• Medieval English common law: clarify, consistent with article content[14]
• mv O W Holmes from Medieval English to US[15]
• hatnote[16]
• Common law legal systems in the present day: clarify Scots mixed law, rmv Kenya and Brunei[17]
• Canadian federal law: update source[18]
• trim lead, simplify and clarify per article content[19]
• Definitions: trim and clarify[20]
• trimming, rmv unsourced comment/opinion[21]
• Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law: trimming, rmv unsourced comment/opinion[22]
• Judicial decisions play only a minor role in shaping civil law: trim[23]
• Judicial decisions play only a minor role in shaping civil law: clarify + inline link, ratio decidendi[24]
• inline links and minor edits to clarify, and trim[25]

Qexigator (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC) + 23:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

+ 25-27 October:

• trim etc[26]
• in lead, add with inline link the Thirteen Colonies, and alphab. the list[27]
• Definitions: trim[28]
• Definitions: Among lawyers... - crisper wording[29]
• Common law as opposed to statutory and regulatory law: common law countries listed in lead are not "Anglo-American"[30]
• Decline of Latin maxims: trim and clarify[31]

Qexigator (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC) + 18:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Degraded article, 19th century obsolete view, and Qexigator

I had looked at this page early this summer, and thought it was really quite good—I recommended it to a couple students. I looked at it earlier this week, and the whole page had degraded remarkably. After some pretty extensive research through the edit history and Talk pages, it’s pretty clear where the problem is—Qexigator.

I’d like to alert the admins that Qexigator’s edits demonstrate—

• bad faith. Editing a dictionary definition is beyond the pale.
• lack of knowledge sufficient to distinguish modern from obsolete—lack of knowledge is one thing, but aggressively rewriting the article around a 19th century throwback is quite another.
• lack of knowledge sufficient to distinguish sense from nonsense (the Islamic law issue, for example)
• lack of knowledge sufficient to distinguish important from unimportant (the “interstitial common law” example)
• lack of respect the difference between modern sources that are recognized in the field vs. sources that are either obsolete, directed to layman definitions, or otherwise imprecise. Replacing cites to the modern Black’s with cites to 60- and 80-year-old sources is rather beyond the pale.

Everything else in this short list might be excusable as single examples (and only arise to bad faith in cumulative effect), but editing a definition—that’s a banning offense.

The underlying problem seems to be that Qexigator holds the view from the 19th century, and declines to recognize that his view became obsolete about 100 years ago. “Common law” meant one thing before 1895, began the transition around 1895, and the transform was largely complete within the profession by around 1920 (though of course there were stragglers much later). Early this summer, the article was framed around the modern view, with the obsolete view mentioned as a historical sidelight. Qexigator’s recent edits (and two prior series of edits, one in March-April 2017 [32] and one in June 2016 [33]) are directed primarily at inverting the relevance of these two ideas.

Here are examples of edits to center on the retrograde view, edits that remove crucial points, and edits that introduce (or at least “make prominent”) perfect nonsense.

• Qexigator edited a definition from Black’s legal dictionary, to remove the part of the definition that he disagrees with. [34] (Black’s, at least in its current editions, is the most authoritative dictionary of legal terms among U.S. lawyers.) This was not an accident; earlier in the Tak page, Qexigator had bluntly disagreed with this definition. At [35] there’s a discussion of Black’s Law Dictionary (the standard dictionary in the U.S.). Black’s (modern editions since 1990 or so) designates “CASE LAW” as a synonym for “common law.” The article itself has a couple of quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court using the term “common law” as a synonym for “case law,” to demonstrate that use. Qexigator asserts (with no contrary dictionary) “case law is very obviously not a synonym in a normal sense of that word, and it is not known how any lexicographer could have found any knowledgeable writer's usage to vouch for it.” Is Qexigator suggesting that the Supreme Court is not a knowledgeable writer worthy of a lexicographic cite? Why is Qexigator’s personal opinion so much more reliable than Black’s (and several other lawyers’ professional dictionaries that give the same definition) and the United States Supreme Court? What is the justificatio for editing out the part of a definition that one person disagrees with?

• The single most important point to understand about the term “common law” is the feedback loop among cases. Qexigator cut this—both the brief overview in the lead, and the longer discussion in the body. That reflects a profound lack of understanding of what’s important and what’s not. This is just one example where his edits (either to remive highly relevant material, or reorganizations that destroy important adjacencies—reflect lack of understanding of relevance—a list too long to compile or present.

• Qexigator rewrote the lead around a 1910 treatise. I suppose one could find a 1910 era treatise that explained the ether theory for the propagation of light—but that doesn’t make a 1910 source a reliable source in 2017, or warrant a rewrite of an article. Same here.

• I went to my law school’s law library to look at the current edition of Halsbury’s, the 1910 source cited by Qexigator. Today’s Halsbury’s “Ecclesiastical Law” section gives modern understanding of “common law” first, and then the 19th century view as an afterthought. Citing an old source for a proposition that even the authors admit is now obsolete is not citing a “reliable” source. I won't accuse Qexigator of intentionally bypassing the modern edition to find the obsolete one, but anyone with an ounce of care would first look for a more-recent edition before relying on something over a century old...

• Among the text that Qexigator removed is the explanation of the evolution from the 19th century understanding to the modern. As of August 30 [36], the article accurately explained the evolution in the concept of “common law” and how the 19th century view has passed out of usefulness in 2017. Qexigator removed most of it.

• October 2017 is at least the third time he’s done major rewrites around obsolescent sources. For example, in June 2016, Qexigator removed all but one of the many cites to the current (10th) edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, and replaced them with cites to the 1960s edition. [37] For this specific definition, the 1960s edition had not been revised since the first edition in 1891—which is why the publisher pulled the old definitions and commissioned a rewrite in the 1990s. Earlier in 2017, it looks like his rewrite was focused around a nonspecialist dictionary from the 1930s. Removing cites to probably the single-most-reliable source, to replace with cites to an obsolete version, or to a nonspecialist source, is not a sign of good faith.

• Qexigator removed the differentiation between general common law and interstitial common law – it was “trimmed.” [38] That differentiation is fundamental, perhaps the single biggest distinction between the courts in the 50 states vs. the federal courts. Why would a knowledgeable editor “trim” something this fundamental?

• The discussion of Islamic contribution to common law is complete poppycock. Islamic law Qexigator wasn’t responsible for adding it, but is responsible for “giving more prominence to important modern theory about 12c. influence of Islamic law” [39] instead of deleting it as any knowledgeable person would have done. Qexigator’s actions are those of a person with poor understanding of the topic, too poor to differentiate between sense and nonsense.

• Quexigator has repeatedly removed text as “unsourced” when the point is already footnoted (sometimes a sentence away, but footnoted). One example [40] Another example [41]

• Qexigator asserts that common law in the U.S. and U.K. had diverged into fundamentally different processes. [42] Nonsense. The difference is between old and new conceptions of common law, not between British and American.

• Qexigator’s rewrite of the first sentence uses self-referential circular logic, and combines two concepts that every major legal dictionary specifies to be distinct.

• I see in the Talk pages that Qexigator has been reminded several times that when he identifies something “unsourced,” the appropriate action is to add an “unsourced” tag, not to make a unilateral decision to cut. He continues to cut.

Except for editing the Black's dictionary definition just because he disagrees with it -- which would get any lawyer kicked out of court -- any of the other errors would be just ordinary human error. Other tahn editing the dictionary definition, I can maintain a “presumption of good faith,” but at some point, zealous pursuit of error, based on a view that’s out of date by a century, despite cautions on the Talk pages, becomes less honest. In practical effect, at some point it becomes indistinguishable from bad faith vandalism, even if different in mental state.

I backed out most of Qexigator’s edits. Where his comments provided useful insight into the history of the meaning of the term, or history of development, I moved his remarks to the appropriate point in the article—discussing history. I cut the poppycock about Islamic law. I tried to keep the comments of others, and apologize if I cut something that should have been kept.

I also note Qexigator accusing another editor of “untruth.” for comment on "three connotations" The conversation is pretty clear that the dispute centers on Qexigator’s misunderstanding, not “untruth” by the other party. This kind of name calling—especially by the party that’s lacking knowledge—is less than we expect of each other. (I hope that this post always discusses Qexigator’s edits, not him as a person. I only know the former, not the latter.)

Qexigator’s edits are far more often retrograde than helpful. I’m asking admins to please address this. This has been going on for over a year—it’s time for forceful intervention, perhaps a permanent ban.

DCLawwyer (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This rather peculiar tirade from a single purpose user self-described[43] as "an attorney in D.C. and Virginia. Occasional lecturer at George Mason Law" is way off the mark. The present version, after the edits (listed above), will be seen by most of those familiar with the topic in common law jurisdictions as an improvement. In particular, please note, as above stated (Revision 20-23 October), after perusing a print copy of Black's dictionary: "Prominence is given 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[44]) will be from there." The US is more than DC and Virginia, and there are many law schools in common law jurisdictions outside those two places, not least in England and other Commonwealth realms, in north America and elsewhere. Noted that George Mason Law School, founded 1979, was renamed Antonin Scalia Law School in 2016, and that Bryan Garner collaborated with Antonin Scalia and that his Wikipedia article mentions his appointment as the editor in chief of Black's Law Dictionary, whose roots are traceable to 1891 and which is currently the most widely respected authority on Anglo-American legal lexicography. Since 1995, Garner has overhauled the book over the course of four unabridged editions (7th–10th). He created a panel of international legal experts to improve all the specialized vocabulary in the book, including Roman law, international law, and transactional terminology. With the help of these experts, Garner and his team have rewritten the entire dictionary and added tens of thousands of new entries, amplifying many with dates of linguistic origin; supplementary usage, historical, or other lexicographic information; and exemplary quotations drawn from myriad sources in the literature on Anglo-American law—some as early as the 16th century. Qexigator (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the attack that is purely ad hominem (that is, attacks on me as a person), without a single word addressed to supporting your edits, without a single word replying to my criticisms of your edits.

While you discuss Mr. Garner (rather than anything he wrote and how it's relevant here) and Black's, you offer no justification for your edit to remove part of the dictionary definition that existed in the footnotes before you started your recent burst of edits. Nor do you offer any justification for all your other edits that removed crucial points.

Nor do you justify your rewritten lead. Your rewrite strips the explanation of what common law is, and leaves only the history of what it was--replacing the important thing with the unimportant does not strike me as an "improvement." Also your lead mixes up two different concepts that all professional dictionaries (even the UK ones that I consulted) state as two distinct definitions and topics.

I think you've made the case quite eloquently for a ban.

DCLawwyer (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record

While assuming good faith, DCLawwyer's further opinionated and needlessly aggressive remarks noted. In particular, on my edits on Black's Dictionary and Garner see above, and on my other edits, also see above Revision (20-23 October), scrupulously listed, and see above rmv "Historical meanings, misconceptions, and imprecise lay usages" and Revising " "Basic principles ..." section. All such edits are to improve the article by removing unsourced, repetitious or verbose text, or to make the writing crisper for the reader and for accuracy. See also earlier edits (from and after April 2017):

• restore succinct sentence at top- RS leading historically from English common law to other jurisdictions, in N.America and elsewhere, per article content, regardless of "modern view" described in article per later USA source[45]
• Common law as a foundation for commercial economies: rmv sentence, obscure in meaning, see Talk[46]
• clarify and tidy up, per sources and article content[47]
• m style, unbold, and lnks[48]
• trim lead, already mentioned above in opening paragraph and expanded in main body below[49]
• correct, trim and add[50]
• Medieval English common law: undo unexplained revert of revision "Removed a conclusion that was unsubstantiated"[51]
• and see Oboboy14
  • Removed a conclusion that was unsupported and added necessary context to a quote from Justice Holmes)[52]
  • Removed a conclusion that was unsubstantiated[53]
• give more prominence to important modern theory about 12c. influence of Islamic law[54]

Qexigator (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You deleted the part of a dictionary definition that you disagree with [55] after explaining that it was intentional [56]. I've only seen one lawyer cut a quote this way -- the judge threw him off the case, and came close to deciding the whole case against the party based on the quote cutting. Editing a quote to remove the part you disagree with is a demonstration of bad faith that's really hard to justify. You haven't tried.

What you call "tidy" and "succinct" removed material that is essential to understanding the way common law courts work.

I'm also very perplexed by all the edits that removed text as "unsourced" when it's clearly footnoted -- earlier or later in the same paragraph, but sourced. The Wikipedia etiquette is to add a "cite needed" tag, not to delete. Good citizenship also urges carefully reading the whole paragraph and all its footnotes before concluding that something is "unsourced."

You claim here [57] to have relied on a "RS" -- a 1910 source is still "reliable?" In history sections, of course. But to state a now-deprecated view in the lead?

If you think a meaning is "obscure" then add a "clarification needed" tag. Deleting it is vandalism. (By the way, to me as a lawyer, the meaning is perfectly clear. If you need a further explanation that makes it clearer to one with no expertise or understanding, ask for it -- I'd be happy to help you.)

DCLawwyer (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Others are invited to note the continuing needlessly hostile tone of DCLawwyer's remarks, based on false assumption and/or reasoning. My concern is the rightful editing of the article, for the information of readers, as detailed above. In particular, it is irrational, or maybe careless if not an intended misstatement, to infer that I disagree with Black's fourfold definition, which my edits adopt as explained above. Qexigator (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

These issues are not "hostile" -- note that I have never said anything bad about you, only your edits. I note the absence of any meaningful response to any of the actual issues, except to call them "hostile," and the absence of any explanation to reconcile your pattern of edits to the practical reality of the way modern courts do their work, or to modern reliable sources. Avoiding the issues doesn't help reach any sort of consensus.

If your goal is "right" and "information for readers," then leave it alone. As it stood before you began your September-October series of edits, I had referred both clients and students to it as a useful guide to the way courts work, and the history of how they got that way. As it was edited 48 hours ago, I would never do so -- the information-to-error ratio was too poor, it did not reflect any current reality, or what to expect as a lawyer or litigant.

DCLawwyer (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Others are invited to consider whether the version preferred by DCLawwyer for his private use in connection with his work as "an attorney in D.C. and Virginia. Occasional lecturer at George Mason Law" is better suited for this Wikipedia article which has a much wider, world-wide readership, not confined to those places, and probably with wider and more varied interests, given that it is "of interest to multiple WikiProjects", namely, WikiProject Law, WikiProject History, WikiProject Philosophy. Qexigator (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Download as PDF instead of disrupting other's edits

Before going ahead again with edits in the usual way for improving the article as detailed above, there is an opportunity for using the link in the left side-panel of the article page to Download as PDF, and of course the PDF can be saved, sent to others and printed by any user. This looks like a good way to satisfy DCLawwyer's preference for the now current version[58] in connection with his work as "an attorney in D.C. and Virginia. Occasional lecturer at George Mason Law". The Common law article comes out at 29 A4 pages, including Contents list, inline links, References and external links, and the usual datestamp at the end. Perhaps we can allow a day or two to pass, for that to be done. But it seems it will remain possible to download any earlier version if that is preferred to such later versions as develop, going forward in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Quexigator, I agree with your proposal to stop editing. I have no plans to do more (except typos and the like). I assume your proposal is bilateral? You proposed waiting for comments. So wait.

If you edit, I will continue to criticize the nonlawyer's profound misunderstanding that's communicated in most of your edits. I won't be hostile, I will just point out the facts.

DCLawwyer (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments noted, showing an unhappy tendency to protest too much, and boast and presume too much as well, as if the article's topic centres on D.C. and Virginia and knowledge and experience sufficient for editing depends on the preoccupations of one who may be engaged in legal practise there, to the exclusion of those with knowledge and experience drawn mainly from other common law jurisdictions in the wider world. Qexigator (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've asked this question several times, please answer it.

What's your good faith justification for editing a dictionary definition, to remove the part of the definition you disagree with? [59]. The only time you've stated a reason is that you personally believe "case law is very obviously not a synonym in a normal sense of that word" [60]. So far, the only basis you've stated anywhere for changing the quote from the dictionary is your apparent belief that you "very obviously" know more than the most authoritative dictionary in the field about definitions of words (not to mention all the other professionally-oriented dictionaries that are also footnoted).

Among lawyers, quote cropping of text to remove the part of the quoted source that goes straight to the central point of the dispute is a big sin, a near-irrefutable indication of bad faith. If you have a justification, please provide it.

DCLawwyer (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Done -- additionally backing out edits by Qexigaotr of August 2017, and preserving edits of others. DCLawwyer (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Most npov and even-tempered editors will not need to be reminded that one who copy-edits an article is not necessarily to be imagined, or aggressively denounced, as less knowledgeable of the topic than another claims to be.[61] Qexigator (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Qexigator, there are several of your edits for which bad faith is the inference that anyone would draw. You've been asked to provide a good faith explanation for just one. Please explain why you edited a dictionary definition that you disagree with. DCLawwyer (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

AGF

In view of DCLawwyer's baseless and needless comment ...several of your edits for which bad faith is the inference that anyone would draw..., all editors concerned, in good faith, with attending to the improvement of the article, are invited to note, as above said:

• Revision 20-23 October

Here is a summary of the series of revisions done 20-22 Oct.[62] to improve the presentation of the article's content, mainly by trimming, and with some inline links added. Prominence is given 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[63]) will be from there.

• Medieval English common law: statutes binding on royal justices made in England before CCP formed in 13c. and Parliament dates from 13c.[64]
• Medieval English common law: clarify, consistent with article content[65]
• mv O W Holmes from Medieval English to US[66]
• hatnote[67]
• Common law legal systems in the present day: clarify Scots mixed law, rmv Kenya and Brunei[68]
• Canadian federal law: update source[69]
• trim lead, simplify and clarify per article content[70]
• Definitions: trim and clarify[71]
• trimming, rmv unsourced comment/opinion[72]
• Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law: trimming, rmv unsourced comment/opinion[73]
• Judicial decisions play only a minor role in shaping civil law: trim[74]
• Judicial decisions play only a minor role in shaping civil law: clarify + inline link, ratio decidendi[75]
• inline links and minor edits to clarify, and trim[76]

Qexigator (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC) + 23:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• + 25-27 October:

• trim etc[77]
• in lead, add with inline link the Thirteen Colonies, and alphab. the list[78]
• Definitions: trim[79]
• Definitions: Among lawyers... - crisper wording[80]
• Common law as opposed to statutory and regulatory law: common law countries listed in lead are not "Anglo-American"[81]
• Decline of Latin maxims: trim and clarify[82]

Qexigator (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC) + 18:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• rmv "Historical meanings, misconceptions, and imprecise lay usages": The section with the above heading is composed in a way that is more essay-like than encyclopedic. It is mainly comment or opinion, partly polemical, attributed to or based on the writings and opinions of O.W.Holmes Jr. (1841-1935), the respected US legal theorist and 'one of the most widely cited United States Supreme Court justices', and on other US sources. It stems from an IP in January 2017[27] If there is a place for it in a Wikipedia article, maybe that would be Law of the United States, but not this one. It is certainly WP:UNDUE here, and the article as a whole would be improved without it. Qexigator (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Revising " "Basic principles ..." section: The section "Common law adjudication" is wordy without being clear, and where it does not state what is better stated elsewhere in the article, it is inconsistent. The article will be improved by removing it. The rest of the section "Basic principles of common law" is almost entirely about common law development in United States jurisdictions, and the article would be improved if it was so named, and what is not US moved to some better place. Qexigator (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• The present version, after the edits (listed above), will be seen by most of those familiar with the topic in common law jurisdictions as an improvement. In particular, please note, as above stated (Revision 20-23 October), after perusing a print copy of Black's dictionary: "Prominence is given 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[40]) will be from there." The US is more than DC and Virginia, and there are many law schools in common law jurisdictions outside those two places, not least in England and other Commonwealth realms, in north America and elsewhere. Noted that George Mason Law School, founded 1979, was renamed Antonin Scalia Law School in 2016, and that Bryan Garner collaborated with Antonin Scalia and that his Wikipedia article mentions his appointment as the editor in chief of Black's Law Dictionary, whose roots are traceable to 1891 and which is currently the most widely respected[citation needed][opinion] authority on Anglo-American legal lexicography. Since 1995, Garner has overhauled the book over the course of four unabridged editions (7th–10th). He created a panel of international legal experts to improve all the specialized vocabulary in the book, including Roman law, international law, and transactional terminology. With the help of these experts, Garner and his team have rewritten the entire dictionary and added tens of thousands of new entries, amplifying many with dates of linguistic origin; supplementary usage, historical, or other lexicographic information; and exemplary quotations drawn from myriad sources in the literature on Anglo-American law—some as early as the 16th century. Qexigator (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• For the record: While assuming good faith, DCLawwyer's further opinionated and needlessly aggressive remarks noted. In particular, on my edits on Black's Dictionary and Garner see above, and on my other edits, also see above Revision (20-23 October), scrupulously listed, and see above rmv "Historical meanings, misconceptions, and imprecise lay usages" and Revising " "Basic principles ..." section. All such edits are to improve the article by removing unsourced, repetitious or verbose text, or to make the writing crisper for the reader and for accuracy.
• See also earlier edits (from and after April 2017):
• restore succinct sentence at top- RS leading historically from English common law to other jurisdictions, in N.America and elsewhere, per article content, regardless of "modern view" described in article per later USA source[41]
• Common law as a foundation for commercial economies: rmv sentence, obscure in meaning, see Talk[42]
• clarify and tidy up, per sources and article content[43]
• m style, unbold, and lnks[44]
• trim lead, already mentioned above in opening paragraph and expanded in main body below[45]
• correct, trim and add[46]
• Medieval English common law: undo unexplained revert of revision "Removed a conclusion that was unsubstantiated"[47]
• and see Oboboy14

• Removed a conclusion that was unsupported and added necessary context to a quote from Justice Holmes)[48]
• Removed a conclusion that was unsubstantiated[49]

give more prominence to important modern theory about 12c. influence of Islamic law[50]

Qexigator (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• and please note:

• Others are invited to note the continuing needlessly hostile tone of DCLawwyer's remarks, based on false assumption and/or reasoning. My concern is the rightful editing of the article, for the information of readers, as detailed above. In particular, it is irrational, or maybe careless if not an intended misstatement, to infer that I disagree with Black's fourfold definition, which my edits adopt as explained above. Qexigator (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comments noted, showing an unhappy tendency to protest too much, and boast and presume too much as well, as if the article's topic centres on D.C. and Virginia and knowledge and experience sufficient for editing depends on the preoccupations of one who may be engaged in legal practise there, to the exclusion of those with knowledge and experience drawn mainly from other common law jurisdictions in the wider world. Qexigator (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Qexigator (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced

In Alternatives to common law systems, the subsection "Adversarial system vs. inquisitorial system" is tagged "unsourced". It stems from Revision as of 17:57, 18 October 2009, by "Vanished user fweflklkaskwi4r592uofmoaihr"[83] formetrly "Boundlessly" [84] If no source is forthcoming, it could well be removed from what is already a lengthy section, or trimmed and merged with "Narrowing of differences between common law and civil law". Qexigator (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)