# Talk:Unus testis, nullus testis

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unus testis, nullus testis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SpaceEconomist192 (talk · contribs) 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@WatkynBassett: Hi. Just to let you know that the review is done and the article has been placed on hold.


### Discussion
### Lead section
...again meaning that the testimony of one witness is insufficient to convict. This sentence should be removed, no need no need to repeat the same information twice.
Done.
Per MOS:LEADCITE, inline citations should be avoided in the lead section. The #1 and #2 sources of this version need to be removed.
I deleted the first citation but disagree with respect to the second. In my mind the English "one man, no man" fits best in the lead. As it need not be repeated elsewhere in the article this statement would otherwise remain without a citation.
Alright, not a problem.
Is unus testis-rule an established alternative name? If so, per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES, it should be bolded.
It is not.
(Optional) This doesn't fall under the GA criteria, but per WP:MOS#Abbreviations it's better to not make up abbreviations, I suggest either writing the full name or refer it simply as «rule».
Decapitalize the «c» in «Canon law» and specify that it's the catholic canon law.
Done.
The lead could have a sentence about the criticism of the rule. Here's an example, «The rule has been criticized for impeding convictions in crimes often committed by only the perpetrator and the victim»,
I implemented the suggested change - nice idea!
The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph needs a split and it could be more clear. I suggest a rewrite to something like this, «The unus testis-rule has historical foundations in the Roman law, it was introduced by a constitution of emperor Constantine I in AD 334. It is also found in Biblical law, both in the Old and New testament».


### Legal institution
All the content of this section in under the «Description and analysis» subsection. It's rather futile, it should be removed.
You are correct, embarrassing oversight.
Add a wikilink to «formalist».
Done
Add a wikilink to «law of evidence».
Done.
...which has been characterized as the "numerical system" by American legal scholar John Henry Wigmore. What does Wigmore mean by this? A clarification is needed.
The meaning of this indeed arcane terminology is expounded in the next sentence starting with "According to this system". It is a system were you can count the number of witnesses and thereby establish whether a fact is true or not - without resorting to a fact-finding decision by a judge or jury. I tried to clarify my meaning by adding "numerical" before "system" to make sure that the reader gets that the second sentence describes this numerical system.
...a single witness to a fact was in principle was → is
Done.
...not sufficient to establish this fact as proven... this → a
Done.
...a larger number of witnesses was required for the establishment of certain special facts. An example of these «special facts» would be a good addition.
This is a good idea. I am looking for an example and will report back.
Finally found one!
Lovely! An interesting one even.
Sometimes even a specific weight was given to a witness' testimony... The use of «even» is editorializing, it should be removed. Also, the sentence is out of place, what's its pertinence?
Removed the "even".
The sentence is part of the larger exposition of the system Wigmore calls the "numerical system". If you need for example three witnesses to establish a certain fact but the witnesses you provide only count as half (e.g. because they have the wrong gender etc), you actually needed six (half) witnesses. I hope this makes it a bit clearer.
...(with the notable exception of the crime of treason where two witnesses are required, see e.g., Article Three of the United States Constitution). Is it possible to put this in an explanatory note?
Done.
...their testimony is often unreliable, inter alia, due to errors of perception... inter alia → among others things
Done.
...received critically by some.. «by some» is a weasel word, it should be removed.
I disagree in this case: The rule has not generally been criticized so I would like to see a qualifier. Only attesting this view to the scholar in question would on the other hand give the reader the mistaken impression that it is a minority view. So I think "by some" is fine in this case.
I checked the source and it does talk about critics in plural Critics have called the traditional requirement of corroborative testimony..., in that case it does corroborate such wording so its fine.
Thanks!
e.g. → for example
Done.


### History
#### Roman law
Add a wikilink to «Classical Roman law» instead of just to «Roman law» (Roman law#Classical Roman law).
Nice idea.
i.e → that is
Done.
...according to current scholarly understanding... looks like weasel wording, it should be removed.
I disagree: For legal history, this clarification is quite important as the historical legal history view was different - as is explained in the article.
Yes my bad, after rereading it does make sense.
I find the paragraph to be confusing, it says that according to current scholarly understanding Classical Roman Law doesn't contain the rule though historically,  D. 22.5.12 was understood as evidence of the rule, so far so good, but then it says that the rule was once again introduced? Are there two instances of the rule or is D. 22.5.12 an article of the Constantine's constitution?
I see the confusion and aspire to be a clearer writer in the future. D. 22.5.12 refers to a passage of the Digest (a six century compilation) which collected earlier statements of important Roman jurists. In this case it refers to a statement by Ulpian, a third century jurist. I tried to make this context clearer and edited the passage accordingly.
The rule is now said to have been introduced... «now» is a relative specification of time, it should be removed.
Here I might need help: I want to express that current scholarly understanding says this and tried to use "now" as shorthand for this. What would be a better way of saying it?


#### Biblical foundations
The rule is not only based on Roman law but has also biblical roots. This sentence is rather futile and the use of «but» is editorializing. The whole sentence should be removed.
I agree on the first point but would like to keep a  have sentence "The rule has also biblical roots;" to make sure that the rule is not only found in Roman law but also attested to in the bible.
Fair point, not a problem. Thought the way I see it, is that if there's a section titled Biblical foundations then its directly implicit that the rule is attested in the bible and the sentence ...the requirement of two or more witnesses is often attested to in the Old and New Testament. is, in my opinion, enough to reinforce this. But it's also fine as it is.
Split the second sentence into two, are pointed to. While in the...
Done.
e.g. → for example
Done.
for the adage → for the rule
Done.
are said to be the basis → are the basis
Done.


#### Later use and decline
Add a wikilink to «promulgated».
Done.
Add a wikilink to «acquitted».
Done.
Add a wikilink to «abrogated».
Done.


#### Current status
Decapitalize the «c» in «Canon law».
Done.
Add a wikilink to «canon law».
Done.
likened → compared
Done.
A subsection about the corroboration in Scots law is needed in order for the article to be broad in coverage.
Here I am unsure: We have a stand-alone article on Scottish corroboration and Scottish corroboration is similar, but not the same concept. It does not deal with witnesses in particular, but just argues that one needs two independent sources of evidence. I thus opted for the addition of one clarifying sentence but now a whole sub-section.
Hmm, it's fine then. Thank you for your insight. I liked the exampled you added about the Portuguese law. :)


### References check
Checked reference #3, #6, #9, #16 and #18.


### Copyvio check
Earwig's Copyvio Detector points to 32,4% (due to quotations) (about half of the sources are in Dutch and German)


### Replies
Thank you for your quick review. I had not expected the article to be picked up so soon and am for private reasons quite time-constrained at the moment. I hope to address the issues raised by you in time, but if I don't, I have every understanding for failing the article. The first batch of replies above! Thanks again! WatkynBassett (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

If they could be addressed until the end of the month it would be great. I will implement the minor suggestions myself to save us both some time. Feel free to voice your disagreement on anything. SpaceEconomist192 ✐  13:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@SpaceEconomist192: Thank you so much for your patience – I really appreciate it and hope to be in position now to answer to all your valuable feedback and advice. I hope to have edited on all issues or at least provided an explanation for not taking up your suggestion. One exception is the example for facts which require a certain number of witnesses. I will hunt for such an example today and tomorrow. If there were any oversights by me, please point me to them! WatkynBassett (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I found an example and added it to the article. Hope I have now got to all your great feedback! WatkynBassett (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Great job on that example and congratulations on your 2nd good article! It was nice working with you. And don't forget to keep them coming, I will happily review them :) SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 23:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@SpaceEconomist192: Thank you so much, it was a pleasure working with you, too. Your kind understanding for my slow responsiveness at first is much appreciated. WatkynBassett (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, I see the point around this fitting the exception in WP:WEASEL but I still have concerns. 

I don't love our use of a reference that points to controversy without specifically pointing to one. We should be striving to dig deeper and find/reference the critical analyses that Coan is vaguely referring to. Can we not point to any specific examples of this being criticized?
At 23 years old it's getting rather dated for the information it is supporting. A lot of things have changed in this area since 2000, e.g. the MeToo movement. Has not one other scholar commented on this in the last two decades?
As it stands, I would at least cite the scholar in text, saying something like "In 2000, <profession> Christin Coan noted that this rule has been criticized, especially in cases like rape where often only the perpetrator and the victim are present."  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: Thank you for your thoughtful reply and in general I would quite agree with your sentiment. In this case, however, additional material on unus testis, nullus testis is unfortunately very hard to come by, as it is an ancient rule with seldom new scholarship on it (some older Italian works probably exist - alas I speak no Italian). If you find something which I overlooked, I would be very happy if you incorporate it in the article. In the meantime I will gladly take up your helpful proposal and edit the article accordingly. WatkynBassett (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I did some Googling at your suggestions and am empathizing with your point about the obscurity of the rule. It also seems like one would need to be able to read Dutch to understand most of the references on this! This has some interesting info + includes a specific 1954 case where this was invoked + info from a 2009 Supreme Court case that shows a potentially stricter interpretation, and this has more info on that last point, but I'm not seeing much more in the 21st century. Google Scholar has a bit more happening, including this. But nothing really speaks to my points above.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Speaking Dutch would indeed be very helpful... If you want to incorporate your material on the Dutch law section, I would welcome that. I considered adding the 2023 journal article myself when I was compiling the article, but I was unsure whether the Religions-Journal was predatory and thus abstained from using it. Happy editing! WatkynBassett (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)