# Talk:William Blackstone

Not sure if anyone cares, but I'm related to William Blackstone, and share his surname.  Unfortunately I don't (presently) know enough to contribute much useful to this article; you'd probably get more information on the subject out of a lawyer.  One day, though, I may get the chance to learn more about him.
I added the trivial tidbit about Blackstone being mentioned in literature.  I remember being surprised to see the name in Moby Dick; I've seen him mentioned elsewhere, too.  Not sure this is really appropriate for an encyclopedia article; if someone wants to pull it out, I won't be offended. Jdavidb 18:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind it being there, and it certain helps to underscore the echoing effects of Blackstone, both during his life and long after.  If you could flesh out exactly the reference made, that would be even more interesting, although I don't know how well that would fit into the main article.  If it doesn't fit, put it here at least. :) Ari 05:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He's also mentioned in To Kill A Mockingbird (in fact, that's why I came to this article; he was mentioned and I didn't know who he was) --Eel 07:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jdavidb
Your not the only relation of his on Wiki - I'm his 1st Cousin - 7 times removed. 
--BMR789 09:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In my pre-law and US Gov classes, Blackstone's Ratio was name we gave for the "Better ten criminals go free than one innocent man be convicted." I've updated the page to reflect that.
SHARPER 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this phrase:

. . . a charge very similar to that repeatedly leveled at Jews throughout history.
The analogy seems inappropriate.  To my knowledge, the Jews have never had a Pope or a comparable leader; and at least in Blackstone's day, the Jews did not have a foreign government either.  Smerdis of Tlön 13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

With better sourceing and formatting this could easily make it to GA. Aboutmovies 21:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the pronunciation in IPA. Ad hoc pronunciations are deprecated in Wikipedia. "Blexstun" is highly ambiguous (for example, it does not indicate which syllable is pronounced, suggests a double /s/ and suggests the final syllable is pronounced like the word "stun"). At a guess, /ˈblɛkstən/ is the intended pronunciation, but I have no idea whether this is the case. — 85.211.2.228 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
How can we possibly verify contemporary pronunciation of Blackstone's name, especially when no sources are cited? ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wprest01 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Blackstone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ajbpearce (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In (probable) anticipation of you finally succeeding at RFA, I thought I would check for inevitable Ironholds GAN's and go through one as a congratulations.

This GAR does not appear to have progressed since 4 January 2011.  Is work still ongoing?  I would be happy to take over the review if the original reviewer has encountered difficulties.  Leave me a message at my talk page if you would like me to step in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


### New Reviewer - DustFormsWords
Reviewer: - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been invited by Wizardman to take over this review given the apparent unavailability of the initial reviewer.  My initial impression is that the article should be able to be quickly passed with minor improvements, but I will conduct a full GAR tomorrow to make sure this is the case and let you know when I am ready for responses  (It's too late in my local day to start now.)  Thank you for your patience. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; 
The prose is clearly written, concise, and very readable.  I have not detected any errors of spelling or grammar.
(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. 
This article complies with the manual of style for lead sections, layout, 'words to watch and list incorporation.  The manual of style for fiction does not apply to this article.:
Verifiable with no original research:
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 
All references appear in the section "References".
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); 
All facts making extraordinary claims or which are likely to be challenged are sourced to reliable sources through the use of inline citations.
(c) it contains no original research. 
The article does not appear to contain any original research.
Broad in its coverage: 
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; 
The article appears to be appropriately broad in its coverage.
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 
The article does not appear to go into unnecessary detail.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
As far as I am able to tell, all relevant viewpoints on this topic are represented by the article.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
The article does not appear to be the subject of rapid changes, edit wars, or ongoing disputes.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: 
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; 
All images appear to have valid legal rationales.
I'd note in passing (not necessary for GA and maybe not for FA) that File:Cavalier d'eon p. 608a.jpg is incorrectly labelled as the "own work" of the uploader.  However the rest of that file's rationale makes its legal status and source clear.
(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 
Images are relevant to the topic and are appropriately captioned.

Overview - I hate to pass an article to GA without finding at least something to improve, but I honestly can't fault this article against any of the GA.  It passes all the criteria and as such I will be promoting it to Good Article.  Well done to all editors involved. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"These were massively successful, earning him a total of £56,000 in 2013 terms"???  In 2013 terms, that is less than $100,000 U.S., which some modern lawyers make in a month.  No sourcing.  I don't have the time to tackle it at present, but this is just ridiculous.  Did he get that much from his lecture series, and wasn't that in the multi-millions today? Bouldergeist (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused; the statement is quite clearly sourced. By '2013 terms' it means 'converting the money from the 18th century to 2013 currencies, it comes to around £56,000'. You don't seem to be factoring in that the number and proportion of literate people (much less literate people with an interest in law) was far less in the 18th century than it would be today; yes, today he might have made many millions of pounds - from selling many, many more copies. If you've got a suggestion for how to rephrase the sentences, by all means, make it. In the meantime, please try not to be so hyperbolic; it needs rewriting, potentially, but currently conversions are neither "ridiculous" nor "WILDLY wrong". Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A dreadful article.
The article maintains that Sir William Blackstone was highly influential among the Founding Fathers - he was, but in the exact opposite way from the way the article implies. Blackstone's work was held to sum up what the Founding Fathers were AGAINST - the idea that Parliament could anything it likes (an idea that the article briefly mentions, but does not explore). This was seen as a revolt against the principles of Chief Justice Sir Edward Cook, Dr Bonham's case, and against the Old Whig Chief Justice Sir John Holt of the British "Glorious Revolution" period. One can not believe in the principles of the Bill of Rights, American or British, and believe in "Parliamentary Sovereignty", i.e. that Parliament can do anything it likes. Does the "legislature" have the right to pass "gun control" regulations or statutes suppressing freedom of speech? The tradition of the Bill of Rights says "no", the tradition of Sir William Blackstone says "yes" - his principle, that Parliament can do anything it wants, is the exact principle that the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers and so on, was AGAINST. The failure to explain this makes the article worse than useless for people seeking basic understanding.176.252.211.128 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! If you think the founders were influenced in a negative way by Blackstone's works, do provide some sources saying so. Note that the article doesn't say they agreed, just that his commentaries were (for a long time, including the period in which the mentioned individuals were learning the law) one of the primary sources of legal education - along, yes, with Edward Coke's "Reports" (his article covers that nicely). Ironholds (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:William Blackstone/CommentsTalk:William Blackstone/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 16:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 10:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Blackstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130414142250/http://www.downtownblackstone.org/visit-blackstone-virginia.html to http://www.downtownblackstone.org/visit-blackstone-virginia.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

There's information in the picture on the right (see the caption at the top) that Blackstone was awarded LL.D degree. Ratte (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting comment on Blackstone himself, seen in changes to his famous work, as worked upon by his contemporaries. Not complimentary, that. Shenme (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)