Talk:Non compos mentis

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.

Spelling questions

"Non compos mentOs" is common, maybe much more so. Why? Andyvphil 21:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason a lot of people write "weird" as "wierd". It's a mispelling. --70.88.44.41 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it Non compus mentis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.122.14 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --70.88.44.41 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A usage

John Sullivan, British television writer, wrote non compos mentis into the dialog of the character "Delboy", played by David Jason, for the sitcom "Only Fools and Horses". Delboy refers to buying broken merchandise when he was "a bit non compos mentis" at the local gambling club, essentially meaning drunk. Mazighe (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested renaming to Compos mentis

Dear readers of this Talk:Non compos mentis. I am having troubles with Compos Mentis, as it is not mentioned in the English Wikipedia. I would like to refer to Compos mentis from my article about a new word called: Mentification. So I would like to change the subject of the page to Compos mentis and explain about it, and after having done that, in the same page I will let it be followed by the original explaination about Non compos mentis. To mention Compos mentis first is for reason that Compos mentis is more essential compared to Non compos mentis. I will leave all explanations as well as all references intact concerning the original term Non compos mentis. For your information: the term Compos mentis in my language (Dutch) has the same basic meaning in legal terms as in English, although the approach is in Dutch more from the neutral side, as Non compos mentis holds implicitely a judgement about the status of the mind and therefore the term: Non compos mentis seems like a prejudgement. A comparable situation would be with the term: Billable hours (at work) as there are also Non billable hours that would not directly lead to a specification on the clients bill. So to explain Non billable hours, one would explain billable hours as well, and first. My question to you: Would the proposed change above be all right with you? I will just wait for a couple of days. If I hear nothing, then I will make the change with all related consequent changes. Else we can discuss the subject further. Bouwhuise (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no legally trained editor, but I can tell you, FWIW, that there was once a compos mentis article, and it last looked like this. Its content was then merged into this article (Non compos mentis), and the old compos mentis was made to redirect here. It later spent time as a disambiguation page with a Wiktionary link. Quite recently, in August 2011, that redirect was changed to its current form, pointing to List of legal Latin terms. Does that help you any?

If you are really set on doing a move (back, I guess), you might consider adding a tag to the article page to give everybody fair notice, rather than semi-silently renaming the article after two days of nobody noticing. Go to Template:Movenotice and see if the explanation there helps you. You might need to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves, too, since the target page already exists. (I always bobble moves and renamings, so I think I'm going to leave the rest of whatever happens to you and others.) Good luck. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag

{{merge}} was placed on this article in December 2015, inviting discussion here. It should have been opposed on the grounds that one article is on specific US law, and this is about the development of a Latin term from a global perspective. There was no comment even from the proposer-so I have zapped it to allow this article to be developed. Sorry if this offends.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

insane - this is a legal term, not medical. It has been a medical term in the past, but no presently

insane is a legal term, not a medical term. It has been a medical term in the past, but not presently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.83.225 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still in use?

Greetings, Since this article mentions older English usage of the term, does that imply it is no longer in use? The article does not specify. If no longer in use, when did that change? What is the current term for this condition? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]