Talk:Malice (law)

message: In the law, England and Wales is a single state and "English law" is the recognised term of art used more or less consistently throughout the entire academic literature on law. As I recall, Hallsbury may desribe the listing on the title page as the "Law of England and Wales" but no-one that I have ever met before has ever used the phrase "English and Welsh law". This is not, nor has it ever been, a recognised term of art. And, with the greatest respect, the fact that one of the cases happens to have a Welsh town as one of the parties is hardly a relevant criterion for mentioning Welsh law. The legal system is administered from Westminster and the law applied is English. My apologies, I wish that what you are proposing would make legal sense so that Wales could be mentioned, but since what we are trying to do in Wiki is to provide a good verifiable academic standard, I cannot agree to any requests to amend the term of art. David91 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no problem with your proposed amendment. Thank you for being so understanding. =) David91 07:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: England and Wales

message: Does this basically mean, if someone says they are going to hit me and threating me with violence. Does that mean they are Malicing me?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.25.201 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malice 

message: Malice is hateful or very bad. For example if someone is malice its like if someone purposely is clapping at a play when not to soppose to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.191.118 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malice 

message: I'm trying some different google searches to try and ascertain the relative popularity of searches for the legal term and the film.
Alec Baldwin is the main star in the film, so restricting the search for Malice to include his name might be a reasonable way to get a feel for the popularity of the film relative to other uses.
:Results 1 - 10 of about 41,700 for Malice +"Alec Baldwin"
:Results 1 - 10 of about 8,890,000 for Malice -"Alec Baldwin"
Including the year of the film, 1993, might be illustrative as well:
:Results 1 - 10 of about 1,020,000 for Malice +1993
:Results 1 - 10 of about 8,350,000 for Malice -1993
:Results 1 - 10 of about 8,310,000 for Malice -1993 -"Alec Baldwin"
:Results 1 - 10 of about 14,800 for Malice +1993 +"Alec Baldwin"
Note that if you add the 41k hits on Alec Baldwin to the 1.20M hits with the year of the movie (which would include the 15k that references both) you still get a much smaller number than the 8.3M hits produced when excluding 1993 as well as Alec Baldwin.
Now let's try to limit the search to the legal term:
:Results 1 - 10 of about 4,150,000 for Malice +law.
:Results 1 - 10 of about 3,960,000 for Malice +law -"Alec Baldwin" -1993.
So if we search for Malice references that include references to the law, but exclude all hits that reference either Alec Baldwin or the year the film was made, 1993, we still get about 4M hits.  But if we search for articles about the film, references that include both Alec Baldwin as well as the year, we get only 14,800.  It seems pretty clear to me, at least according to google searches, that the legal use is much more prevalent than the film, and meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria of "significantly more commonly searched for and read". --Born2cycle (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not seriously suggesting that the film should be the primary topic. Only that there is still no convincing evidence that the legal term is the primary topic. If you examine the first several pages of Google results for Malice, few of them are explicitly about the legal term. Even your Google results indicate that of the approximately 9 million hits for the term, only approximately half that number are returned when limited to Malice +law. The term is ambiguous and having the disambiguation page at the base term is appropriate. older ≠ wiser 16:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google results

message: I'm not a lawyer but the first paragraph says there is express malice only when there is deliberate killing of a person. 
I'm pretty sure there are all kind so express malice.  I think all I've got to do is punch you out for no reason.  
Am I wrong?  Murder is one example of express malice, but not the only one.  
Badly written, someone should fix it but I am not a lawyer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.118 (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence is wrong isn't it?  

message: Can malice lead to contamination? Can contamination also lead to malice what my mom told me? 112.209.65.184 (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can malice lead to contamination? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malice (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/20060313092450/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000518/rivers-1.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000518/rivers-1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified