Talk:Court of Chancery

Further Details Needed on Reason for Shift to Judicial Body
"academics attribute its shift to an almost entirely judicial body to this increase." In my opinion that statement essentially doesn't make sense as-is. Further details are needed to clarify. In essence the statement says, "They suddenly got really big, therefore they became a judicial body." That's not an explanation of any causal relationship, it's simply a statement that two things happened at the same time. It may SEEM to be common sense, but in my opinion it's not. I feel that further details should be supplied which elaborate on the causal connection between an increase in the size of the administrative body, and it's "shift" to a more "judicial" function. Otherwise one is left confused as to what the real causes were. A great place to start might be to supply information about who specifically made this decision, if known - perhaps a King or Queen or the head of Chancery itself? How *quickly* did this shift happen? etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Abolition of Arkansas chancery courts
Arkansas abolished its separate chancery courts on July 1, 2001, when Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 80, which reorganized the state judicial system, took effect. The former Chancery Courts were merged into the Circuit Courts, which heard criminal cases and actions at law pre-Amendment 80. Though some divisions of the post-Amendment 80 Circuit Courts mirror the old Chancery Courts' jurisdictions (mainly the domestic relations division, which ended up with most of the Chancery Courts' caseload), all ordinary civil actions are now heard in the civil division of Circuit Court whether they request legal or equitable relief, as in nearly all the other states. --RBBrittain 04:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge "Court of Equity?"
there's a barely-more-than-stub article on "Court of Equity."

Should that be converted into a redirect to this very lovely article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundlessly (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so - that article, a stub though it is, is about courts of equity generally. This article is about a specific court of equity viz the Court of Chancery. – ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is simply the most important of the historical courts; it is by no means the only one. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work!
I've just seen this, and it looks good, a lot of effort.  Wik idea  12:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. Apparently it was shown to Sir John Baker, and he called it "impressive". Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The next time I e-mail my old Oxford law tutor, Jeffrey Hackney, I will send the link to him too. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cambridge and now Oxford? I've got the whole deck! Mind asking him for a legal history MPhil position? :P. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Academics"
In a few places in the text, there is language along the lines "academics felt that" or "according to many academics". This language is weaselly, and stylistically uneven. Mentioning the names of the academics involved, especially if the mention of their names doesn't promote understanding of the material, seems to me to just add to the length of the text. For example, mention is made of a Margaret Avery and a Nicholas Pronay making claims, but no citations exist to tell us when or where they made these claims. This is most likely because their names were mentioned in another source, and were copied into Wikipedia without being properly researched. To what end are the names Margaret Avery and Nicholas Pronay mentioned? None that I can discover. So I'm going to take a stab at editing, let me know what you think. Abductive (reasoning) 15:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not a weasel word; it is in fact the opposite, because it provides attribution of the comments. Your removal of the names was weaselly.
 * 2) Please WP:AGF. I have written a plethora of Good and Featured articles; I don't think it's much to ask you not to assume that I don't know how to do basic research.
 * 3) Both are fairly clearly cited to Tucker, P. (2000). "The Early History of the Court of Chancery: A Comparative Study". English Historical Review (Oxford University Press) 115 (463) - for future reference, an inline citation after the commentary normally indicates that's where the commentary came from. Just FYI.
 * 4) If you had done some basic googling, you would have discovered that Nicholas Pronay, for example, is a distinguished Emeritus Professor of history. I have been meaning to write articles on the two for quite a while, hence the redlinks; my apologies that I haven't. Both are clearly attributed as academics and named; that is the opposite of weasel words. Ironholds (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the article is improved by mentioning these academics inline. Articles in encyclopedias aren't written the same way as articles in the scholarly literature, because they are supposed to summarize. Per the WP:Make technical articles understandable guideline, editors must strive to be "understandable to the widest possible audience". Is the reader supposed to be an expert in the history of ideas? Are Avery and Pronay so influential as to have changed the world's understanding of the Court of Chancery? If yes, then they deserve to be cited on their own, not within Tucker's citation. If no, then trimming their names is consistent with WP:Summary style. Can you demonstrate that Avery and Pronay aren't primary sources in this context? (See WP:PSTS.) It is Tucker that is the secondary source; s/he is synthesizing earlier material. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In WP:Guide to writing better articles, it gives examples of weaselly verbiage. One example is "Critics say that...". How is this different from "Academics say that..."? As written, the text gave the impression that there was debate about the timing of the growth of the caseload. Is that really the situation? And is this (possible) debate important? That's what I meant by weaselly. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of not knowing how to do basic research. But it is possible that you aren't seeing the forest for the trees; you wrote it like a scholarly essay, because you had been reading scholarly material. But scholars are directing their work at other scholars, who are interested in the people behind the ideas since it provides them with information about the validity of their statements. In an encyclopedia, such naming of people simply comes off as WP:JARGON because the reader has no such context. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not different. Saying "Academics say.." "Critics say.." is weaselly because it doesn't show if it's a majority view, or fringe, or who these hypothetical academics are. "Academics such as X and Y" or "Academics say X. Joe Bloggs, Professor of History at..." is perfectly acceptable because it identifies precisely who is making these statements and hypotheses.
 * When you say " This is most likely because their names were mentioned in another source, and were copied into Wikipedia without being properly researched.", you accuse me of not knowing how to properly research. There is context; Academic X and Academic Y. Surprise - they're academics! Ironholds (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Ironholds here. The names are better attributed inline. This situation is different from "Critics say"; the purpose of that part of the MOS guideline goes hand in hand with avoiding criticism section, according to WP:Controversy. The point of the policy is to avoid vaguely referring "some people said", but to be clear and say "John Doe said". &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is what I think I've done. As you say, the point of the policy is to avoid "some bloke said" and, where possible, replace it with "Mr Bloggs, an expert on the subject, said" or remove it entirely. Ironholds (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But why is it important to identify precisely the people behind this (possible) debate? What is your evidence that it is controversial, or that this controversy needs to be in a summary? The bloke who is saying the synthetic statement is Tucker. I don't think you have sufficiently addressed my points above, nor made an effort to see my point of view. Let's see if anybody else has an opinion. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a controversy; it is simply providing attribution. Turner did not do the research; he is in turn citing somebody. Saying that Turner maintains X, that would be inappropriate. Where a study or piece of research has been done to individuals, attributing that research to others is incorrect. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So then the best thing to do would be to read what they said directly, paraphrase it, and cite them directly using the standard referencing formats (in other words, the way Tucker is cited.) Abductive  (reasoning) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Except I don't have access to their original articles. The options are therefore what I've done, or what you are suggesting, which would be to improperly attribute work. We'd be saying "Turner says X", when he doesn't. Ironholds (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then it can't be Verified. And there is a guideline out there that says reference styles must be consistent within an article. What I suggest is using a word other than "says", such as Tucker "showed" or "established" or "examined". Abductive  (reasoning) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Except he didn't "show" it, because that implies he did work on it. He didn't establish it, because that definitely established he did work on it. He didn't examin it, because that implied he considered it in more than a passing way, which he didn't. The language you've provided gives exactly the impression I'm criticising - that Tucker did the work. Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so then he had so little to do with it that the others need credit. But do they need to be named inline? I say no. If you have Tucker's book, you are allowed to use his Literature Cited section to reconstruct the appropriate refs and place them in the article in a way consistent with all the other refs--as footnotes. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's appropriate to reference something to a reference used in a reference? Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, if the Tucker book is trustworthy, which it is. He lists where he got the idea, and you patch the reference through. In certain reference styles, you say something like "as cited in...", but that instruction does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia . So just go for it. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, idea, I guess. I'll take a look. Ironholds (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT might be worth a look. BencherliteTalk 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I don't feel comfortable with citing the book and getting my information from the webpage, as it were. Also, shouldn't you be at the Pepper v Hart FAC? :P. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, good, there is an instruction. Write: "Smith 2005, p. 100, cited in Jones 2010," between ref tags, with full citations in the References section. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember citation style and presenting a clear picture for the reader inline are two different things--Crossmr (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Vice Chancellor
The article says that the office of Vice Chancellor ceased to exist when the Supreme Court Acts 1873/1875 came in. But the article Chancellor of the High Court shows that Vice Chancellors continued to be appointed as heads of the Chancery Division of the High Court until 2005, when the post was renamed Chancellor. DavidWard talk 12:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No; if you look at the list (and crossreference with Sainty's Judges of England) you'll see that the office was recreated in 1971. Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (After a little digging) Section 5 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 authorised the Lord Chancellor to appoint one of the puisne judges of the division as VC to be responsible to him for the organisation and management of the division - link. There's no mention of the post of VC in the 1950s edition of Halsbury's Laws that we have in chambers (we never throw anything away...). BencherliteTalk 16:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why on earth.. Do you use it to prop doors open? My books are divided into "modern" (2007-issue and onwards textbooks and practitioners works) and "ancient" (19th century-18th century). The intervening gap seems largely useless :p. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move and retargeting of Chancery Court, changes to Court of Chancery (disambiguation)
See Talk:Chancery Court. Note that Chancery Court is currently a full-fledged article. The proposal would have it be a redirect to Court of Chancery (disambiguation). There should be no effect on Court of Chancery. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Discussion can be found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChancery_Court&diff=591225081&oldid=208820874 here]. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Chancery Prison
William Russell has this to say in his essay “ The Martyrs of Chancery”:

[speaking of Queens Prison] “…there is a proportion of prisoners—happily a small one—within those huge brick boundaries, who have committed no crime, broken no law, infringed no commandment. They are the victims of a system which has been bequeathed to us from the dark days of the “Star Chambers” and “Courts of High Commission”—we mean the Martyrs of Chancery.

” “These unhappy persons were formerly confined in the Fleet Prison, but on the demolition of that edifice, were transferred to the Queen’s Bench. Unlike prisoners of any other denomination, they are frequently ignorant of the cause of their imprisonment, and more frequently still, are unable to obtain their liberation by any acts or concessions of their own. There is no act of which they are permitted to take the benefit—no door left open for them in the Court of Bankruptcy. A Chancery prisoner is, in fact, a far more hopeless mortal than a convict sentenced to transportation; for the latter knows that at the expiration of a certain period, he will, in any event, be a free man. The Chancery prisoner has no such certainty; he may, and he frequently does, waste a life-time in the walls of a jail, whither he was sent in innocence—because, perchance, he had the ill-luck to be one of the next of kin of some testator who made a will which no one could comprehend, or the heir of some intestate who made none. Any other party interested in the estate commences a Chancery suit, which he must defend “or be committed to prison for “contempt.” A prison is his portion, whatever he does; for, if he answers the bill filed against him, and cannot pay the costs, he is also clapped in jail for “contempt.” Thus, what in ordinary life is but an irrepressible expression of opinion or a small discourtesy, is, “in Equity,” a high crime, punishable with imprisonment—sometimes perpetual.”

Excerpt From Recollections of a Policeman William Russell This material may be protected by copyright.

What on Earth?? There is nothing about this in the article. 2601:647:5800:7D80:119D:2328:DB58:5450 (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is relying too much on a 1927 article
This article is relying too much on a 1927 law review article to incorrectly imply that the common law judges helped out regularly in Chancery. I have not seen that doubtful assertion in any other source, and even if true, that may have been the case early on when Chancery was young, but it was definitely not the case by the 19th century!

The most recent version of Baker's book on English legal history (and other sources) portray Chancery as a catastrophically overloaded mess by 1800 because it was a one-judge court staffed by a part-time judge, the Lord Chancellor, who was also busy supervising the House of Lords and with other affairs of state. The Master of the Rolls could hear cases but only in the Chancellor's absence, and his decisions were subject to review by the Chancellor. Thus, there is a theme in the sources that the Chancellor was the bottleneck. This point is completely absent from the current version of the article. Any objections before I revise the article to make that point clear? Coolcaesar (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Too many paragraphs in lead
Per WP:LEAD, there should ideally be <= 4 paragraphs in the lead. There are currently many short paragraphs in the lead, which honestly I prefer, but just noting that it doesn't abide by the recommendation (which is flexible btw) 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)