Talk:Legal writing

message: The exemplar phrases given all seem like plain English to me. Maybe not in everyday use, but I would think that 95% of English speakers would understand what is meant. 148.177.129.212 15:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start of discussion

message: Examples peculiar to the US should be extracted from the main article, perhaps saved for a "US Section". As it is, specific US articles are worth less than general English ones. 195.24.29.51 12:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US 

message: Could anyone help me understand what "you will indemnify <website name> or its affiliates for all claims resulting from content you supply" means? Am i passing ownership to them? Can i still post a photo on Commons after uploading it there? Thank you. -- Jokes Free4Me 07:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wording issue 

message: I have two questions. First, should legalese redirect to Legal writing or Legal_writing#Legalese? It currently goes to the first, but I can't decide which is better. So, I'll take the easy way out and pass it off to others.
Secondly: why, why, do legal documents feel the need to write numbers in two (2) different ways? Legal documents, instructions, and anything written by ignorant people trying to write formally. "I have three (3) cats." Huh? It's as if they're trying to avoid any controversy with people who aren't very literate in English, while conveniently forgetting that legalese is incomprehensible to half of all native English speakers. Why? Any and all explanations, clarifications, justifications, rationalizations, or explanations will be greatly appreciated by one person or many persons, including, but not limited to, the following person: Twilight Realm 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is way too easy to modify 3 cats to 8 cats with a sharp pencil. The difference between $3000 and $8000 is not negligible, therefore it is tempting to modify the value, even if it be not right to do so. --193.179.187.70 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. That does make sense. But then, why is the same convention followed outside of contracts--in instructions, etc.? Is it just an attempt at formality? Twilight Realm (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reason  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.89.168 (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two (2) things 

message: Perhaps it's just me, but I don't want the Legal English entry merged into the Legal Writing entry. Who does? Wschiess 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do.  They appear to be about the same phenomenon.  Can you explain why they are not? --Alynna 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, please explain. Jsmaster24 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: The game was published under an "adults only" rating in the U.S., whereas it was possible to acquire the game at 16 years of age in the UK.. If we want to stress a weaker adversative "while", we may use whereas - this is not archaic to me! Formal yes, but not archaic. -andy 92.230.130.110 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But as a way of introducing a proviso it is much less mainstream and some English speaking jurisdictions still use it in that form in their legal writing (eg "Whereas the parties have agreed to contract..."). Francis Davey (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''whereas'' removed: this is no Legalese! 

message: The article states that 'such', 'as an adjective', is used only in law. Bah humbug! Such foolishness should not be accepted without protest. Publius3 (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Such' foolishness

message: Legal writing does have distinguishing features, as the article points out, but the inclusion of #3 in the "Vocabulary" section (archaic words) and "Formality" confuse the issue.  These two things are not necessary features of legal writing, though they are common features of *bad* legal writing.  69.121.6.97 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Bad legal writing' - that's redundant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.89.168 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article confuses "legal writing" with "bad legal writing" 

message: I am sorry if the title is offensive to any contributors, because I am really not trying to hurt anyone's feeling. But as a non-native English speaker, solely reading the first few paragraphs of this article is frustrating enough, let alone understanding. Maybe “formality should give way to clear communication” in the case of this wiki entry too?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeenNc (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this article itself a breathing example of bad legal writing?