Talk:Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart

message: There's some useful new stuff, but it'll have to be worked into the existing style. There will be different types of users. One type will be people who want intensive reviews and criticism of a given case. Another, more common user, will be someone who wants a simple overview of a case's facts and judgment. Both need to be kept in mind, and it'd be good if the editor would accept a standard format that everyone understands. Wikidea 09:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Academic critique and future developments in a case are key to any article; when someone goes to "Pepper v Hart" they should be able to find the legal and factual background, the relevant parts of the judgments (not just the entire main one and a complete absence of the) and the interpretation and further development of the principles. I can get a third opinion if you like, but trust me that "we should include the judgment verbatim and users wont want the reviews and interpretation" is not going to be an accepted style. The fact that other caselaw articles are written without further aid to the student and reader does not mean that is the preferred style. See the article on Roe v. Wade (I know it's a different jurisdiction); background, a summarised judgment, further development and opinions on the decision. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also appreciate if you'd recuse yourself from the GA review, particularly given our past "history", and stop making pointy comments. Ironholds (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid if you can't work collaboratively, then you'll get nowhere. Let's hope you don't have WP:OWN problems. Wikidea 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For a good layout, see Carlill v Carbolic Wikidea 20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "maintained" template is a valid one; I have reverted your edit to the page (see WP:BRD, which I think I linked [I may have forgotten]). Can I suggest getting a third opinion on this, such as Agradman or RichsLaw (other law editors I can think of)? And on an unrelated note, we really must get around to doing a Law MoS some time. Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Look, why can't it be set out like a casebook would? I've already got a manual of style that I follow consistently for every case page I write. I've thought about it, and it works, because it's the same as a standard UK casebook. You should follow it. Wikidea 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, don't you admit that you put in your own version without discussion, or an attempt to integrate? Wikidea 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Once again, stop putting up those silly "I want to claim all the credit for this page, but I don't own it" tags. Wikidea 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I've read through the stuff that I deleted originally carefully now. A substantial amount of what you've written is useful content. But much of it is inane detail nobody needs to know. Like this: "As a result of this discovery, the House of Lords chose to reconvene as a 7-judge panel, including the Lord Chancellor.[3]" It is inconceivable that this footnote - Dyson p.173 - is in any way useful, or that you need a "secondary source" to confirm the number of judges. It's like quoting Benjamin Jowett to say that Aristotle split Politics into eight books. Wikidea 16:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe I have to waste my time explaining this. Wikidea 16:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not a casebook. We are an encyclopedia. Were we merely a casebook the American law articles would simply be a copy of the judgment, for example. Ironholds (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A normal encyclopedia wouldn't contain any cases, at all, so it's really quite useless to say "we're not a casebook". The point is, why if a description of a case is useful as set out in casebooks, we shouldn't try to do the same thing here? It looks to me you want to engage in writing something like a case note - except one which doesn't follow any real format, like all the ones you're citing. In that situation, I suggest you send your work to some academic journals, and do not engage in WP:OR here. Wikidea 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain how it is original research? Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: I've taken out the mention of John Hart winning Mastermind. To me it seems like trivia which adds nothing to a discussion of the legal case (unlike, for example, the fact that he was a teacher at Malvern College, which is directly relevant). However, if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me - I'm not going to argue over it. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely; the current draft version misses it out. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Seems like interesting trivia to me - gives a little more background on one of the major parties. If it is mentioned in any sources during the case, I'd be for keeping it. Otherwise, delete. II | (t - c) 16:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor parties. Hart was one of a group of teachers; it just so happened that when they banded the cases together, his was the first filed. I don't think "One of 7-9 people who were involved in filing an unrelated case which led to this important legal decision was on Mastermind" is really relevant. Ironholds (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in a footnote. It's interesting. It makes people remember the case. Wikidea 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At best, only if it can be referenced. As explained above, it's completely irrelevant. I highly doubt anyone is going to remember the case by "one of nine chaps involved with bringing the first case that led to the decision that affected an almost completely unrelated point to their dispute.... was on Mastermind". Could you go over your concerns again above? We're not going to get anywhere otherwise, and if I have missed anything it's an honest mistake. People seem to far prefer our (my/your/whatever) test version to the current one, so not mentioning any problems will simply either a) leave an inferior article on the wiki or b) lead to the test version being implemented per WP:CONSENSUS against your wishes. Ironholds (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mastermind

message: We seem to be deadlocked, in that Wikidea isn't responding - either because he's "given up repeating himself" or he's been busy. Regardless, the end result is an article nobody is happy with. I'm getting a lot of positive responses to Talk:Pepper v Hart/test as compared to the current version - any opinions on implementing it directly, and fixing any issues through an uninvolved Good Article Review? Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume Good Faith and remember the above message about reverting or tweaking back to "your" preferred version. Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're also completely missing the point. This isn't about the law. This isn't about a debate over the actual contents of an article - both our articles contain the same factual material. This is a debate over the layout and over the style, which is a wikipedia issue, not a legal one. These people are Wikipedia users, so I think they're able to comment on style matters. This isn't a damning of your factual opinion of Pepper v Hart; this is a damning of your style. Incidentally, said style in many cases violates copyright law. In what universe is quoting an entire item fair use? Crown Copyright isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA, and those buggers who make up the judiciary have now been claiming individual copyright on some items. Funny how you, a "lawyer", didn't spot that. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Please grow up. Wikidea 16:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep telling me to do that, after insinuating that I've been canvassing (which isn't something you'd complain about if you'd actually got your way, I'm sure). Again; this is about style, not fact. Please accept that your style of case articles, which in many cases violates copyright law, is not acceptable, and move on. Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Preferred version

message: Which one do you prefer, this or this? 50.19.78.29 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. "It tells you what work you're linked to" is not very helpful when there are only a dozen or so bibliographical entries. Ironholds (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred citation style 

message: I am not a lawyer so maybe I'm missing something here, but... in the section called, "House of Lords", it says, "the case came before a 5-judge panel of the House of Lords, consisting of" and there follows a list of seven names. I'm not clear on how many people a 5-judge panel normally has, but I wouldn't mind betting it is five, not seven. The paragraph then concludes, "the House of Lords chose to reconvene as a 7-judge panel" and I suspect the list of names applies to this second panel, not the first. But I might be wrong.
Cottonshirtτ 04:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *headdesk*. It must have got rearranged during the various FAC fixes - now sorted. Thanks for pointing it out :). Ironholds (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Many Judges Make Five? 

message: "...damaged the separation of powers between the executive and Parliament..."
Surely that should read "the judiciary" not the executive? David (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldn't.  If you read the whole article, you'll find the passage that says this: "The decision also raises questions about the separation of powers in the United Kingdom; it has been consistently maintained that it is Parliament, not the executive, which passes legislation. If one accepts that statements by the executive can allow them to specify the meaning of particular laws without formally including them in statutes where they can be approved by Parliament, it violates this separation of powers, allowing the executive to make law." BencherliteTalk 15:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, I see. A very dodgy decision! David (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judiciary surely? 

message: This article ought to mention Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.2) [1996] 2 All ER 363 Richard75 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Rivers 

message: Check out this tweet from Spectators legal blogger David Allen Green: Wikipedia pages on legal cases like this one on "Pepper v Hart" will put law textbooks out of business. Excellent. 
https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen/status/280789911819415552  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: praise