Talk:Automatism (law)

message: I've read this article and I still don't know what automatism is. The article assumes that the reader already knows what the word means, and so launches into background concepts, etc., without defining the term. Probably all that's needed is the addition of a simple defining sentence or two in the first paragraph.
*Per the above note, I've added such a sentence. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  top section 

message: What exactly is the rationale for not merging the case law article for automatism?  I don't see any mention of a civil law concept of automatism. EECavazos (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger 

message: I read through the article and also looked through the article's revision history of the last 4 years (which, relatively speaking, isn't much) and the general tone of the article is more like a legal essay or quite possibly a textbook rather than a formally written article. It's relatively informative if you have a clear enough idea of the subject matter (although some more references would be nice) but the tone past the first couple of sentences is completely inappropriate and can actually make it difficult for some people to comprehend.
I'm flagging it and hopefully it can be rewritten to sound more straightforward and formal.
KirkCliff2 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Essayish 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Automatism (law). 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://web.archive.org/web/20051222174337/http://www.colorado.edu:80/iec/SP200RW/sleep.htm to http://www.colorado.edu/iec/SP200RW/sleep.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211075146/http://www.mtsinai.org:80/pulmonary/Sleep/sleep-murder.htm to http://www.mtsinai.org/pulmonary/Sleep/sleep-murder.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.jur.lu.se/Internet/Biblioteket/Examensarbeten.nsf/0/403832FDCB0EB5A9C1257029005307D7/$File/exam.pdf?OpenElement
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The comment about the insanity defence being introduced to common law in the 19th century is wrong on several grounds. Common law defence predates this, statutory insanity defence introduced in 1800 which is the 18th century. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment posted to the top of the page 

message: Whenever l have a night terror myself, l am usually completely immobile and the cause of the terror often is someone by my bed talking to me, or else l hear voices or laughter. The only exception to this are my first two night terrors, which involved me spinning around my bedroom in a circle - and l don't know what was happening to me at the time.Tnarrud3 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Night Terrors 

message: In the 2nd paragraph of the introduction it says "The prosecution does not have to disprove the defence as is sometimes erroneously reported" but in the 2nd paragraph of 'scope' it says "when the issue is raised by the defence.. the prosecution then has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was acting voluntarily".
May need rewording to remove this apparent contradiction. 2A0A:EF40:E4F:CE01:EDBA:FFF0:6714:58CD (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory?