Talk:Dictum

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Confused article

I have made major changes to this article, which was highly misleading. A classic mistake of a beginning law student is to use the term dictum/dicta for obiter dictum/dicta, which is simply incorrect. The article made this elementary mistake and was written as if they were the same thing, which error being compounded by a "contrast obiter dictator" statement, adding further confusion.

The term dictum on its own barely deserves an article, but its worth putting this here just to make sure. Please discuss any attempt to revert to what was before here first. Francis Davey 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree the new version is technically correct, the use of "dictum" as shorthand for "obiter dictum" is hardly confined to beginning law students, but also sees print in the pages of prestigious law journals. --Delirium 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after having surveyed usage in recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I'm not even convinced this is correct. The Supreme Court has been consistently using the word "dictum" or "dicta", alone, to mean what this page calls "obiter dictum". I am unable to find any examples of the Court using the phrase "obiter dictum" instead, or of it using "dictum" or "dicta" to refer to a part of the judgment that forms binding precedent. For just the most recent example, see Scalia's opinion for the Court in Puckett v. United States ("That statement, like the one in Brady, was dictum.") I don't dispute that some law dictionaries may define it otherwise, but it seems that such definitions are no longer in accord with common practice in the US. At the very least, the shorthand practice isn't "incorrect" or "a classic mistake of a beginning law student". --Delirium (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Delirium that dicta no longer covers any binding precedent -- at least not in the United States. BLD concurs with this, as does BLD's source (CJS). You also need to realize that Francis Davey is from the U.K., and the rest of us are using the U.S. meaning. I have edited the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.107.200 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no se ingles carajo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.48.130 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]