Talk:Indemnity

message: Why is there a witnessing track for the Unification Church here of all places?  It seems totally inappropriate.  Especially if someone's child is just looking for the word indemnity.  Their parents don't want them to be witnessed to on Wikipedia. Marknw 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the wording and removed the link. I think that section should be here but it should just be informative. S Sepp 07:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't more of the religious denominations be included? Marknw 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they use the word 'indemnity' as well, then sure. S Sepp 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The short section has been moved to Unification Church article as it does clearly not belong here. If anybody writes a longer article (or wishes to begin with a stub) on non-legal indemnification, then please move the contents of  this article to Indemnity (law) and place a disambiguation page here, placing their article in Indemnity (Unification Church) or equivelent. Bamkin 22:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the Unification Church here? 

message: The following requires further review for its invective against Jews and for its derogatory nature:
"According to unofficial notes by an audience member, Reverend Moon said:
:"Through the principle of indemnity Hitler killed 6 million Jews." 
This would seem to imply that the Holocaust (murder of six million Jews by the Nazis) served as indemnity for their responsibility for the death of Jesus (see Unification Church and anti-Semitism)"
Further opinions... IZAK 08:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from main page

message: This article and Indemnification have nearly identical content, and, for that matter, the same problems.  I'm indifferent as to which should remain, but there definitely should not be two articles. Mmmbeer 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good --Curzon 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ALL insurance is an example of indemnity in the legal definition. The insurance company pays for somebody else's mistake - e.g. Timmy down the road kicks a football and smashes my car windscreen, Timmy is at fault, if the AA pays for my broken windscreen, the AA has indemnified Timmy. Bamkin 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Indemnification]] 

message: This is all very interesting but does not help me with the UK legal meaning of "Indemnity", including the "Title Indemnity Insurance" that UK Solicitors and Mortgage Lenders are now persuading buyers and or sellers of property to purchase, as condition of sale, to make up for the absence of Planning Permission or Building Regulations Certificates from the Deeds of the property.
 
OED has four distict meanings for "Indemnity", none of which are theological.
Vernon White 13:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ALL insurance is an example of indemnity in the legal definition. The insurance company pays for somebody else's mistake - e.g. Timmy down the road kicks a football and smashes my car windscreen, Timmy is at fault, if the AA pays for my broken windscreen, the AA has indemnified Timmy. Bamkin 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indemnity in UK Commercial Law

message: The first paragraph of the article:
:"Indemnity is a legal exemption from the penalties or liabilities incurred by any course of action. For example, after wars, the losers have sometimes been required to pay indemnities. An insurance payout is often called an indemnity, or it can be insurance to avoid paying expenses in case of a lawsuit."
This seems like a contradiction to me.  The first sentence says that indemnity is an exemption to pay for damages.  The second sentence says that it is a requirement to pay.  Steve Dufour 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can indemnity relating to insurence by placed within a single section please? I wish to write about two other legal definitions of indemnity but find it difficult to determine where to place these (they clearly belong in this article but it is overrun with insurence related information). I am to write about indemnity clauses under contract law, and claims for indemnity within an action for resititutio in integrum. Bamkin 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is it?

message: I agree that the more technical articles should cite sources, but I'm unsure what would be an appropriate source for the general legal propositions. If this is meant only to apply to the tangential topics towards the bottom (war, church discussion) then it should be immediately before those sections.LH 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation requested was over-the-top as that is clearly the main principle of the 14th ammendment. I may add a link to the text of the ammendment on USgov website. The exact ammounts of indemnity probably should be varified though. Bamkin 17:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source citation 

message: I intend to remove the sections relating to "indemnity" for slavery and war, but wish to canvass opinion first.
My difficulty with these sections is primarily that even if it is accurate to talk about them as instances of indemnification, they are merely that. Mentioning them seems to me no more relevant than listing every other form of indemnity (starting with a list of every known type of insurance policy and contractual obligation to meet losses). Unless someone has verifiable evidence that there is some particular reason that these are instances of indemnity different and distinct from every other type of indemnity justifying their presence, I think they should be removed as they only serve to muddy the waters.
I also have more specific difficulties with both of them. In the case of the slavery section there is repeated reference to it being simply a "belief" of the time that slaveowners suffered loss in consequence of the emancipation of their slaves. Whilst I do not wish to suggest slavery to be anything less than utterly abhorrent, this was not a mere belief but an actual fact. Slaveowners did suffer loss due to emancipation. Distasteful though it may seem to us now, slaves were property; merchantable commodities. Not only could they be sold for money (or exchanged for other goods) they were tools which generated income. If a law were passed tomorrow banning the ownership of tractors there could be no question that current tractor owners would suffer a loss. That is not a mere belief, it is a commercial reality.
In relation to payments for damages caused during war the term more usually employed is "reparations." I have never seen the word indemnity used in this context anywhere else and would be grateful if someone would point me to a verifiable source in which it is so used. 
--Antisthenes 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Perhaps the war section should be integrated into reparations, and then a reference to it placed here. I don't, however, feel particularly strongly either way.LH 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. It's not even clear that this is a form of "indemnity" as opposed to compensation. I will delete the section now. Anyone who feels strongly otherwise can restore, and initiate a discussion here. Lawdroid (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery and War?

message: I restored the information about indemnity for slave owners and war indemnity because it was simply deleted. People worked on this information and it is interesting. If somebody wants this article to be more narrow, please move the unwanted contents to other articles, which conform better. Ufim (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Section title is now "Freeing of slaves and indentured servants", yet describes slaves and serfs. Are there any examples with indentured servants? Numbersinstitute (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slave indemdity and war indemnity 

message: CoolCaesar deleted the section on US Contracts in this Indemnity article, on 23 Feb 2016, without giving any replacement. The topic is notable since indemnity clauses are pervasive in US contracts, and seem to have a meaning there distinguishable from the other usages in the article, so the deletion needs discussion here. The US Contracts section had 4 parts when it was deleted:
* Distinction between indemnity in negotiated contracts and in adhesion contracts
* Standard legal issues considered in negotiating indemnity clauses (cost control, moral hazard, etc.), sourced to legal experts on the subject and a respected legal publication
* A state supreme court case enforcing an indemnity clause in a contract
* Indemnity clauses used in various industries
CoolCaesar gave 3 reasons without specifics, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, which have the following meanings: 
* WP:NOR, No original research. "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." But the various sections (especially the few conclusions) were derived from and attributed to reliable sources. 
* WP:NPOV, Neutral point of view. "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." But a variety of views were presented, and if CoolCaesar knows of other views which are missing, the fix is to add them, not delete everything.
* WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a textbook. "It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." But there were no questions nor problem solutions in the material deleted.
Others can use the revision history to compare the article before and after the 23 Feb 2016 deletion, and add their thoughts here. I'd say the section was brief and could be expanded, but it was a reasonable start on the subject. Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of section on US Contracts in 2016