Talk:Common law/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Unrevised detail from lead to main body

In view of points discussed above, editors are invited to note that some detail overloading the lead has been moved down into the main body of the article with inline anchor links and retaining current text and sources. Qexigator (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Qexigaotr, the sentences you removed from the lead are the most important set of sentences from the whole article -- "the defining characteristic" and how the process works. You left the single sentence in place but removed all explanation of what that means? Once again, your edits demonstrate a lack of any judgment or knowledge of what's important vs what's unimportant. STOP.

This is now the fourth time I'll ask the same question:

What's your good faith justification for editing a dictionary definition, to remove the part of the definition you disagree with? [1]. 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" [2]. 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.

You seem unable to offer any justification for an action that, in any other context, creates a near-irrefutable presumption of bad faith.

I also note the comment from Coolceasar--

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)

You gave the long catalog of edits, but no responsive to any of the questions about those edits. Your nonresponsiveness is a further inference of bad faith.

DCLawwyer (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

lead/top, shorter version Reply to Qexigaotr, the sentences you removed from the lead are the most important set of sentences from the whole article -- "the defining characteristic" and how the process works. You left the single sentence in place but removed all explanation of what that means? Once again, your edits demonstrate a lack of any judgment or knowledge of what's important vs what's unimportant. Perhaps that remark is the result of overhasty or insufficient attention to the edit. It may be supposed that most editors are aware that the question for good editing/revising in respect of such a question is the distinction to be made between the purpose of the lead/top of an article, which is to let the reader have a concise summation of the content of the article as a whole while putting in the main body the expansion of what is briefly stated in the lead/top, and with that in mind to exercise balanced and npov judgement in the composition of the article. Let us compare the two versions, the longer version "LV"[3] and the shorter version "SV"[4]. Please note that in SV there are ample links to assist readers to know where to look for further information, in this article or another.

• 1_LV Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law or case law) is that body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals.

1_SV Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law or case law) is the body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals, based on that developed in England, and, in common law jurisdictions, it is the basic system of legal concepts, together with the techniques of applying them in courts of law.

• 2_LV The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent.

2_SV The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent.

• 3_LV In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), and legislative statutes are either silent or ambiguous on the question, judges have the authority and duty to resolve the issue (one party or the other has to win, and on disagreements of law, judges make that decision). The court states an opinion that gives reasons for the decision, and those reasons agglomerate with past decisions as precedent to bind future judges and litigants.

3_SV mvd to precedent.

• 4_LV Common law, as the body of law made by judges, stands 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 (the interactions are explained later in this article). Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

4_SV In common law systems case law interacts with statute law. Common law, as the body of law made by judges, stands 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. Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

• 5_LV A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, and to the style of reasoning inherited from the English legal system. Common law systems originated during the Middle Ages in England, and from there propagated to the colonies of the British Empire.

5_SV England's common law originated in the Middle Ages, and from there later propagated to the British Empire's colonies.

While it would be rash to see any version as final and perfect, of those two versions it is reasonable to see the shorter[5] as preferable for this article than the longer[6], and likely to be more accommodating to readers. The shorter certainly deprives readers of nothing contained in the longer. Qexigator (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

DCLawwyer's critique

Answer the bad faith question first. Then we'll come back and dicuss your record of cutting material that you think unimportant, and we'll review the record of your judgments there. And finally third we'll discuss the principles of "inverted pyramid" writing. But let's clear up the bad faith question first. (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• DCLawwyer is invited to withdraw the groundless charge of bad faith, and enable any editors interested in discussing the further improvement of the article constructively to do so, unobstructed by such interventions. Qexigator (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't "charged" anything. All I've done is put the facts in front of you, and asked you to explain them. Here's a sixth opportunity --

What's your good faith justification for editing a dictionary definition, to remove the part of the definition you disagree with? [7]. 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" [8]. 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.

You seem unable to offer any justification for an action that, in any other context, creates a near-irrefutable presumption of bad faith.

Any "charge" is the natural inference from the facts, confirmed by your failure to offer an alternative explanation. I haven't said it; it's your own inference. One of those old Latin common law legal maxims, res ipsa loquitur.

DCLawwyer (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the fuss, what the problem? Why pick a pointless quarrel?[9] Those interested may see for themselves sufficient affirmative mention of Black's fourfold definition above and may see these edits: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Qexigator's list of edits does a nice job of showing incompetence and lack of understanding of the topic. But let's not change the subject, let's work through things in an orderly way. Let's stick with one issue that nicely comes into focus around one edit -- bad faith. Same question, seventh opportunity to answer it.

What's your good faith justification for editing a dictionary definition, to remove the part of the definition you disagree with? [17]. 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" [18]. 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.

You seem unable to offer any justification for an action that, in any other context, creates a near-irrefutable presumption of bad faith.

As Coolceasar wrote, your failure to answer the question goes a long way to cementing the inference (and also starting the conversation about competence, but let's save that):

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)

Your answer to my simple question may obviate the need to discuss competence.

DCLawwyer (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Which kitchen cookware is black/ blacker/ blackest?

Editor's may have noted DCLawwyer's version of the Black's citation in revision at 11:38, 15 November 2017, [19] viz repeats that in his earlier revision at 16:55, 27 May 2017,[20] viz Does that look like a mountain of bad faith or molehill of inadvertence? Let us surmise, de bene esse, it was no more than a slip[21] or mishap, which should be made good by fixing the "ref name" and inserting the absent "[synonym]". So far as I now know, the undetected mischief started with an IP edit of 01:00, 26 November 2016.[22], and was not there in June 2016.[23] The IP's WP contributions, starting in November 2016,[24] appear to be mostly on legal topics. This has led me back to an Archived discussion of March 2017 (flowed under the bridge) with said IP, Talk:Common law/Archive 8. But please note, my present position on Black's fourfold definition is as stated above on this page, and seeing that work as currently RS for treating "case law" as a synonym is acceptable for the purposes of the article, at least in respect of US and maybe elsewhere if not (yet) in England. Qexigator (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• IP's / DCLawwyer's cite to Black's now fixed by Qexigator (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Qexigator:

Thank you for answering the question. Now let’s look at your answer the way we’d look at any other case involving bad faith, for example a tax cheat case:

1. Is the claimed act of inadvertence a negative act of omission (like omitting a small one of many sources of income) or a positive act of commission (like setting up a separate account for the hidden income)?

2. What was the explanation at the time?

3. What other information did you have at the time? Is there evidence of willful blindness?

4. Is it a single instance, or is it part of a pattern?

Qexigator’s claim of “inadvertence” doesn’t square with a positive active act. If the error in edit [25] were of negative act of omission—confusing two adjacent keys on the keyboard, or leaving something out—a claim of innocent inadvertence would make perfect sense. But for acts of commission—selecting specific text and deleting it—“inadvertence” or “mishap” doesn’t wash as an explanation.

Qexigator’s past explanations conflict with his claim of “inadvertence” now.

In March 2017, Qexigator’s edit comment was “common law not aka judicial precedent or judge-made law, per article or otherwise RS” [26] Qexigator was asked whether his concerns were met by “the cites to Black's (current edition) and to Garner” [27] Qexigator’s response was “I was aware of those cites, which actually support not" (italic in Qexigator's original).

Two days later, you stated that you personally believe "case law is very obviously not a synonym in a normal sense of that word" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Common_law/Archive_8#common%20law] I don’t see any retraction of that belief before the edit to change the dictionary definition at [28]

Tax cheats always have lots of after the fact explanations, but juries always believe the explanation that was pending at the time.

Qexigator’s claim of innocent inadvertence today is inconsistent with earlier knowledge. Qexigator claimed “There is no RS for putting parenthetically after the opening words … (also known as case law or precedent)". The parenthetical words are unsupported by the sources cited… Black's Law Dictionary - Common law (10th ed.). 2014.” [29] This discussion ends with a note to Qexigator,

after a trip to the library to look at "Black's Law Dictionary - Common law (10th ed.). 2014," the very source you cite, we see –

1. The body of law derived from judicial decisions... CASELAW

It's right there under your nose, in the very place you say it isn't. Please explain.

Qexigator never explained. He willfully ignored the information, and later edited the same definition.

Qexigator’s claimed inadvertence is part of a pattern. Qexigator has repeatedly removed essentially the same synonym, removed cites to Black’s and Garner, or rewritten the article based on sources that are 50, 80, 100 years old and obsolete. I can’t imagine how one explains that this last one is “inadvertent” when it’s one of many. [30] [31] [32]

I’ve never had to take a case to trial like this—the party always drops the case or settles for pennies. If it did go to trial, I would have no trouble doing something I’ve only had to do twice in decades—accuse the other party of a tissue of lies, and lying to cover up.

Qexigator has a long record of bad faith.

And I’ll copy once again, Coolceasar’s admonition of Quexigator’s bad faith, “incoherent mess,” “deliberate vandalism,” “consistent evasiveness,” and lack of “rational justification,” –

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)

Qexigator, do I need to ask for a formal ban, or will you just bow out?

DCLawwyer (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

We may surmise that most who would be willing to attend to such exorbitant misrepresentative bombast on DCLawwyer's part would soon cheerfully be able to see it for what it is. Qexigator (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you know. Qexigator's talk page history [33] shows a lot of conversations that Qexigator deleted out of his history. Many of the deleted conversations contain warnings of being banned for disruptive editing. A familiar feature of your life, eh? DCLawwyer (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That gives me the opportunity to welcome all to view User talk:Qexigator and its Revision history. Like, I believe, some others, my general rule is to blank any (thankfully few) overbearing or troll-like messages, usually groundless, misplaced and of at least mildly hostile tone, or otherwise failing to observe civility, and usually from persons unable to allow that others may not accept their pov or be at least as well-informed as they. Sometimes such intrusions appear to arise from misreading on their part, but not always wilfully. I do not operate Archive as such, but note "Blanked page up to its 4th anniversary 07:18, 3 June 2016"[34]. There is a discussion headed "Common law (Hello again)", 13 - 20 July 2014. Of course anyone can trawl back earlier, but even alert minds are likely to find the GREAT BLACK'S CONTENTION stirred up by DCLawwyer becoming an increasingly tedious distraction from the work of improving the article in question. PS Please note, for the avoidance of doubt, the allusion to "cookware" in the title of this section was not intended to be in reference to the adage "Don't feed the trolls". Qexigator (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just for the record, pots, pans, and kettles are generally not considered utensils; they are cookware and bakeware. bd2412 T 13:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point, and we are there informed "The choice of material for cookware and bakeware items has a significant effect on the item's performance (and cost), particularly in terms of thermal conductivity and how much food sticks to the item when in use." Qexigator (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Leading question: LV or SV?

In view of points discussed

• above on this page,
• and before, Talk:Common law/Archive 8[35] (as I see it, discussions in Archive 1-7, from 2006 to September 2016) are not here relevant, other than to show how earlier content was debated),

I am proposing (subject to edit tweaks in the usual way) that, given the article's current content and structure (see article's Contents box, from 1 Definitions to 7 See also), its presentation would better accommodate readers,

• from the relatively casual quick-look or fact-checking kind
• to the student /journalist/ general reader searching for information in greater width/depth,

if some detail overloading the lead in the current Longer version LV (03:47, 17 November 2017)[36] moved down into the main body of the article with inline anchor links and retaining current text and sources, as in an earlier Shorter version SV (10:20, 15 November 2017). [37]

As I understand it WP editors are expected to be able to let the reader have a concise summation of the content of the article as a whole while putting in the main body the expansion of what is briefly stated in the lead/top, and with that in mind to exercise balanced and npov judgement in the composition of the article. Please note that

• in SV there are ample links to assist readers to know where to look for further information, in this article or another,
• and SV would deprive readers of nothing contained in LV.

Below is the comparison the two versions copied from " Unrevised detail from lead to main body" above (as it was at 16:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)):

• 1_LV Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law or case law) is that body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals.

• 1_SV Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law or case law) is the body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals, based on that developed in England, and, in common law jurisdictions, it is the basic system of legal concepts, together with the techniques of applying them in courts of law.
• 2_LV The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent.

2_SV The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent.

• 3_LV In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (a principle known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), and legislative statutes are either silent or ambiguous on the question, judges have the authority and duty to resolve the issue (one party or the other has to win, and on disagreements of law, judges make that decision). The court states an opinion that gives reasons for the decision, and those reasons agglomerate with past decisions as precedent to bind future judges and litigants.

3_SV mvd to precedent.

• 4_LV Common law, as the body of law made by judges, stands 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 (the interactions are explained later in this article). Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

4_SV In common law systems case law interacts with statute law. Common law, as the body of law made by judges, stands 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. Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.

• 5_LV A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, and to the style of reasoning inherited from the English legal system. Common law systems originated during the Middle Ages in England, and from there propagated to the colonies of the British Empire.

5_SV England's common law originated in the Middle Ages, and from there later propagated to the British Empire's colonies.

While it would be rash to see any version as final and perfect, of those two versions it is reasonable to see the shorter[38] as preferable for this article than the longer[39], and likely to be more accommodating to readers. The shorter certainly deprives readers of nothing contained in the longer.

References

Discussion

Please comment here, whether on the introductory remarks or specifically on one or more of the numbered comparison paragraphs.

Qexigator (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comments on 1_ above

The definition of common law in your preferred version is utterly incoherent: "the body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals, based on that developed in England, and, in common law jurisdictions, it is the basic system of legal concepts, together with the techniques of applying them in courts of law." This is a circular word salad. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Could you please be more specific about what you see as "utterly incoherent...circular word salad", after you have (re-)read and considered Black's fourfold definition? Reasoning is usually a more helpful response than a series of overly dismissive epithets. Qexigator (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

For starters, it is considered to be bad form to recursively use the term you are trying to define in a definition, because it creates a confusingly circular mess (namely, the reference to "common law jurisdictions"). Recursion is a cute logic trick that can sometimes lead to elegant program code, but it makes for terrible prose. Most teenagers understand that important distinction.

I'll have to review Black's (which I keep at the office) before responding in-depth later.Coolcaesar (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Coolcaesar: first, your point about Recursion noted, and the wording should be tweaked to avoid that inelegance; meantime, secondly, I look forward to your further response when you have reviewed Black's; thirdly, I do not accept your point about "logical inference" in respect of DCLawwyer, and respond on that below. Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"logical inference"

Also, I note that you still haven't responded on the merits to User:DCLawwyer's rigorous and well-articulated criticism above, and instead have resorted to "overly dismissive epithets" in response (namely, your denigration of that criticism as a "pointless quarrel"). Why don't you just answer the question that has been asked of you eight times?

The logical inference (as has been pointed out to you again and again) is that you have no reasonable defense. I don't have the time to take this to ArbCom. I will certainly support anyone who does. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, DCLawwyer: In my opinion I have already occupied more space on this page about DCLawwyer's criticism than it deserves, but since Coolcaesar has taken the trouble to respond here, I will repeat what has been said before (to save space, I will link back to article edit summaries from 8 November, and passages on this page above from 22 October):

• Edit summaries[40] + [41] / [42] / [43] / [44]
• Talk page above

• 6 Revision 20-23 October[45]
• 7 rmv "Historical meanings, misconceptions, and imprecise lay usages"[46]
• 8 Revising "Basic principles ..." section[47]
• 9 Degraded article, 19th century obsolete view, and Qexigator[48]

9.1 For the record[49] / [50] / [51]

9.2 Download as PDF instead of disrupting other's edits[52] / [53]

• 10 AGF[54]
• 11 Unsourced[55]
• 12 Length[56]
• 13 Unrevised detail from lead to main body[57] / [58] / [59] / [60]

13.1 DCLawwyer's critique[61]

• 14 Which kitchen cookware is black/ blacker/ blackest? new section[62] cheerful[63] welcome[64] cite[65]

In my opinion, that suffices by way of response to DCLawwyer's needlessly and unacceptably aggressive comments, on this page and in edit summaries. But in respect of "untruth" in Rfc in Archive 7: "This IP's untruth noted: see reflist no. 4. Qexigator 17:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)" see reflist of the then version "4 Black's Law Dictionary - Common law (10th ed.). 2014. 1. The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions; CASE LAW", while immediately above the IP untruly wrote "Why remove the cites to Black's mosst current edition, other than that you disagree?"

Basically, time would be better spent on improving the content and presentation of the article than menacing others. Qexigator (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Qexigator, you've proven the point--all you give here is your rationale. But that has nothing to do with my reasons for questioning your edits. You give no response to the facts that go contrary to your views. All you're doing is demonstrating the "evasive nonresponse" that Coolceasar observes.

We keep coming back to the same problem -- what you characterize as "improve" reflects no meaningful knowledge of the topic (much of what you think you know is just plain wrong), and even less judgement to know what's important and what isn't. Your prose is often gibberish -- "circular word salad" as Coolceasar characterizes it.

My long bullet list--take a look. Is there anything "aggressive?" The list juxtaposesg two facts next to each other--what you did and an external fact as a reference--and asks why your edit and other outside facts keep clashing. That's not "needlessly aggressive" -- it's the way to show that a vandal should stop, and supporting a ban if the vandalism continues.

I am stunned that you would accuse another of "untruth" when the facts are right there under your nose. You edited the dictionary definition -- you've expressly admitted that. You had expressed your disagreement with that very part of that dictionary definition. Now you say it's "untruth" to juxtapose those two facts. How does a reasonable and honest person do that?

Stop.

DCLawwyer (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)