Talk:Derogation

Law Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism Low‑importance

Derogation is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism task list:

edit
history
watch
purge

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Couldn't this be worded better?[edit]

subsequent law imports the abolition of a previous one.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but It seems a suitable paraphrasing of the Latin If not litteral. I'm not a Latin subject matter expert.Seanwong (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples ?[edit]

Some Examples in context may assist the casual reader ( me ) to better understand this relatively obscure Latin derivative.

Derogate in the Australia US Free Trade Agreement Article 17.1 Paragraph 7

"A Party may derogate from paragraph 6 in relation to its judicial and administrative procedures, including requiring a national of the other Party to designate an address for service of process in its territory, or to appoint an agent in its territory, provided that such derogation is: " In my view this means in plain-speak that the previous paragraph 6, provisions can be ignored IF the requirement is for a "local address or Agent to be appointed".

As an off topic comment it is interesting to not that the Article 17.1 authors were not aware of the exact wording used in Article 10.5 which specifically commits that neither party will require a local presence ie an address or agent for a cross border service provider. I expect he Legal eagles would argue that commerce involving an intellectual property is a special NON service to the extent that a copyright or patent requires a physical location for the paperwork to be sent! Seanwong (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the original source[edit]

Please do not revert references to original source material. The fact that the original source makes more clear that it the content relates to a specific jurisdiction, as opposed to a website where the same material is replicated, is not a basis for reversion. If your concern is that sources be global, it is better to identify sources that are associated with a particular jurisdiction so that you know where supplementation is needed, as opposed to removing that information such that the issue is not visible to editors or readers. Arllaw (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arllaw: you did not check the original source, you simply added the source TFD claimed to use. You should only add sources you have checked in those cases. Moreover, if you use "derogation" in its 19-century meaning in the USA, then you have to mention it and no state it as a general definition. This is why I prefer to use the contemporary source such as TFD. Veverve (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not accurate, as you would know had you actually checked the original source. I am not clear you prefer to cite websites that quote material rather than the sources that they are quoting, if that is in fact your objection. If not, your objection is unclear. Arllaw (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]