Talk:Mootness

Needed
Needed: what states allow appeals by prosecution after an acquittal in a criminal case? Ellsworth 21:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moot point
Can we have the term 'Moot Point' link to this?


 * No, because it has different meanings in different parts of the world. --Concrete Cowboy 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a history of the word Moot? It sounds too funny to be a proper word. Like Bonkers.
 * try Wiktionary at link above, just added. --Concrete Cowboy 13:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, added now. --Concrete Cowboy 12:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Moot' has the same etymology as 'Meet' like a "meeting". The word 'Moot' was the anglo-saxon form of the old Germanic pre-christian word for a tribal or religious assembly. Nagelfar 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you added "moot point" to the lede? It does not seem right to me. When I read your edit summary, "→‎top: rather than revert the IP editor's GF edit, just add "moot point" to the opening sentence. Debold second instance of word "moot".", I spent a while trying to find a prior edit about "moot point" in the lede, before I understood that this was in response to this edit removing the boldface from the "Moot point" section of the article. But the article is not about "moot points," it's about "moot" and "mootness." Sure, that's one common way the word is used, and it has its own section, but it's not what the whole article is about. I do not think, editorially, it belongs in the lede. Especially not to solve a style question about how to style an individual section, rather than on its own merits. It seems like it was put there as a compromise, but not a proper one? jhawkinson (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a bold edit: if you disagree you can revert and discuss per WP:BRD but thank you for asking questions first and shooting later.
 * I did it for a few reasons: first, moot point redirects here and so should be listed early, not lost in the body for the IP editor to misread it as an error; second, per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise the main points of the body: we have a whole section on "moot point" so it should certainly be in the lead; third, the distinction between en-US and en-UK usage is a critical one for this topic and is probably one of the main reasons that people from this side of "the pond" visit this article and the text should provide an early response to that interest.
 * In response to your the article is not about "moot points," it's about "moot" and "mootness.", I disagree. Or to put it better, "moot point" is entirely on topic for "moot" and "mootness", indeed to me it is inseparable. If I had added something about moot halls or entmoot, you would be right to challenge, but "moot point" is an essential aspect of the concepts described in this article. Well it is in the UK, maybe not in the US.
 * Is that enough? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Mootness
The page is a good one and a valuable addition to WP. However, I take issue with the title. The word "mootness" is a neologism that has been back-formed from the notion of a "moot point", i.e. the idea (in law) that any further action would be entirely hypothetical, and therefore irrelevant. Finally, the phrase "moot court" is commonly used and understood in U.S. (as well as British) legal jargon. The verb form "to moot an idea", while correct in U.S. English, is quite uncommon.

While the word "mootness" does occur (e.g.) in Arizonans for Official English et al. v. Arizona et al. (520 U.S. 43 (1997)) (how ironic) written by Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, and other cases (e.g.) Hicklin v. Orbeck (437 U.S. 518 (1978)) misuse the verb form of "moot", that does not establish the correctness of the word "mootness". If we go this direction, soon we'll have "mootfull", "mootitude", and "mootilicious".

I would suggest the page be renamed "Moot (Legal Jargon)" or "Moot Case (Legal)". You can then do a #REDIRECT from "mootness" and (?) everyone will be happy. -- Gnetwerker 18:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. "Mootness" appears in 450+ Supreme Court opinions and thousands of circuit court opinions. 250,000+ Google hits. At some point, a new word just becomes a word. Mootness is there. Amcfreely 18:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the several-month lag time between my posting and your comments, I would say the resounding Wikipedia consensus is "don't care", which defaults to leaving it as it is. I would argue with you, however, that a word in the jargon of a field (whether legal or computing) stays jargon unless and until it enters the language more generally.  I don't think "mootness" has done so, unlike blog (e.g.). -- Gnetwerker 19:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All News file on lexis: 1998 hits. I disagree that a word is jargon just because it's specialized. You would never hear "polymerize" in conversation, but that doesn't make a neologism. Amcfreely 02:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A neologism is not the same as jargon. Neologisms last for decades or even centuries within their specialist domain without breaking into the general lexicon.  If I say "that problem is Order 'n'", that is computer science jargon, and has not broken into the general language, whereas (e.g.) "he's a black hole for information" is an example of a jargon word that crossed over.  I don't know what the test one way or the other would be, but I am sure that 2000 google hits isn't it. -- Gnetwerker 05:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There were 250,000 Google hits. The 1,998 hits was the number of times "mootness" had been used in published news sources in the Lexis All News database. Amcfreely 06:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My Federal Courts textbook has a chapter titled "mootness". Sure, you can argue it's "jargon", but there are lots of article in this encyclopedia on jargon - e.g. creampie. bd2412 T 07:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have lost track of what we are arguing about. I am no longer proposing the page be renamed. Whether the word is or is not legal jargon is probably unimportant, though my Webster's does not consider it a word at all, even a jargon one. Have a mootiful, mootilicious afternoon. -- Gnetwerker 19:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What a chutzpah, Gnet. I did coin the word "mootylicious"—and you not only use it freely, but you even misspell it... --JackLumber 22:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Mootness is found only in Webster's 3rd (the big, fat, unabridged one), defined as "the quality or state of being moot—used of an issue, question, or case before a court."


 * Aaarrggh -- a Jack Attack (tm)! My most humble obeisance, I stand in awe of your most impressively big ... dictionary :-) -- Gnetwerker 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the References
This article cites several examples. The examples, are in proper legal citation form; however, they do not tell a non-lawyer how to find the material other than by referring one to another Wikipedia article, which is not in accordance with the Verifiability Policy, in particular Self-Published Sources: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources." Further, they do not stand for the proposition, but only for examples of it. Supporting a Wikipedia article is far different from supporting a legal argument and using example cases smacks of Original Research, in particular Synthesis and possibly even citing oneself. Citation to law treatises would be more appropriate for Wikipedia than citation to an example case. Further, many items have no citation whatsoever. For example: In the U.S. federal judicial system, a moot case must be dismissed. The reason for this is that Article Three of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of all federal courts to "cases and controversies". Thus, a civil action or appeal in which the court's decision will not affect the rights of the parties is beyond the power of the court to decide. I stand by my unreferencedtag.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

mute not a malapropism
The article currently claims, Due to the relatively uncommon usage of the word moot, this is sometimes rendered as the malapropism "mute point".

I don't think this is properly a malapropism. To the extent that "mute" and "moot" are homophones, it seems clearly not. Malapropisms are primarily about speech and so the substitution of an incorrect word has to be more than just spelling the word wrong.

If we say that "mute" and "moot" are pronounced differently (arguably), they still seem too close to each other to qualify as malapropisms. It's not like "electrical" vs. "electoral" or "reprehend" for "apprehend." It'd be my intention to remove the malapropism claim. jhawkinson (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is not a malapropism, but there must be a name for this kind of faux pas. Rather than just delete it, could you be persuaded to do a word search and then replace it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a name, it's just wrong. This particular error does not occur in English very often. One could call them "misplaced homophones" or "improper homophones" or even "errant heterographs" but none of these terms is standardized. jhawkinson (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ jhawkinson (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A malapropism is "the mistaken use of a word in place of a similar-sounding one." The use of the word mute in place of moot is by clear definition a malapropism, in the exact the same way that the use of "squash" in place of "quash" is a malapropism in a disturbingly increasing number of Internet news articles about legal proceedings. (In any case, I have never heard the word mute [MYOOT] pronounced the same as the word moot [MOOT.]) RyokoMocha FOR I AM NYARLATHOTEP, THE CRAWLING CHAOS!! 21:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate page move.
A move like this should have been discussed prior to doing it, it is not uncontroversial. Yes, the concept of "mootness" has a particular meaning in US law that is not (afik) used in any other jurisdiction. In fact the term is very little used outside the US. The effect of this move is to change a simple name to a complicated one for the large majority of users, mostly in the US. While (as a British editor) I regularly challenge US assumptions being made on en.wiki, this one goes to the opposite extreme. I really don't see any justification for this change and believe that it should be reverted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My intention was instead of rewriting the article to globalize it, we just declare that the U.S. version and create a new article for the general term.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 18:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, I had guessed as much. But had you proposed your planned change here first, you might have been advised that the term is very little used outside the USA and that there is no need for change. Look in the article, the amount of non-US material is very limited. So there was really no need to create a fork just for US readers who you would now deprive of awareness of how the rest of the world understands the term. IMO, the article was already proportionately globalised: most of the article reflected US practice because that is where the term is most used. Sufficient and appropriate recognition was given to usages elsewhere. I suggest strongly that you should revert this move. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)