Talk:Recklessness (law)

R v. G and Cunningham

Both a subjective tests, but there is a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicelilo (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Done. — Aitias // discussion 20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recklessness (criminal) → Recklessness (law) — Per WP:NCDAB, the disambiguating word should be either the generic class which includes the topic (perhaps "legal term" in this case) or the subject or context in which the topic applies ("law" or maybe "criminal law"). The use of the disambiguating word in this case is not really in keeping with our naming conventions, as it seems like it's just an attempt to fit "Recklessness, criminal" into the frame of Wikipedia's disambiguation system. — —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose: Criminal recklessness is a specific crime in England and Wales and slightly different in Scots law. and I believe in many US jursdictions I only have one book on criminal law and procedure in the US). It might tighten it down to a meaning that does not generally appply. SimonTrew (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on I am arguing against myself there. So might as well keep topic at Recklessness (law) and discuss it there. SimonTrew (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree that "Criminal recklessness" may be a preferable title, especially if the simple term "recklessness" isn't more frequently used in law. However, I don't think that "Recklessness (criminal)" works; it seems like an attempt to get both possibilities in one title, but all it really does is gets the simple "recklessness" definition without having an appropriate disambiguation word. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm There is indeed a subset of recklessness (law) - Criminal recklessness and this article is generally couched in those terms. This article is certainly a mismatch of the generality & the specific (criminality). I certainly dont think it would be wrong to change the name. Þjóðólfr (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Recklessness (law) per nom. Makes sense to me... --Born2cycle (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support suffix change to "(law)" per WP:NCDAB2. There is no generic class here, and so the suffix should be the context or topic, rather than a qualifier like "criminal". And "(law)" is already well established as a suffix, eg for alien, standing, will, agency, guilt, equity. Grafen (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Recklessness (criminal) is a confusing disambiguation because of pages like Larry Davis (criminal). The proposed title is clearer. Jafeluv (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

If the move has consensus, it might be a good idea to discuss moving these articles as well:
Jafeluv (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Idea: move any page xxxx (criminal) to xxxx (criminal law) where xxxx is an aspect of criminal law or criminal behavior and not the name of a human (or in fiction, alien) criminal? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, although I would prefer just xxxx (law) when the term is only used in criminal law. If it's used elsewhere as well, then we would need xxxx (criminal law) and xxxx (property law), for example. Jafeluv (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

more culpable than criminal negligence?

There are a variety of terms used to denote a level of negligence that is worse than ordinary negligence but do not involve actual intent to harm. But I request a citation for the proposition that “recklessness” “shows less culpability than intention, but more culpability than criminal negligence.” Likewise, is “criminal” negligence worse than “gross” negligence, or is it the same thing? If the answers to these questions vary between different jurisdictions, then this article should clarify that (for example, by moving the statement in question to a different section). Bwrs (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]