Talk:Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd

Struck out?
Why is this clause struck out? SimonTrew (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's meant to indicate that the court severed the clause, isn't it?  Wik idea  15:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Template
Just a note to say that I made Template:Blue pencil.

Example: Result:

 Chzz  ►  22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good mate, cheers!  Wik idea  01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Severability
I am a law student at Edinburgh University. I came upon this Wikipedia article while seeking information on the famous Nordenfeldt case. On returning to the actual case reports and then comparing them with this article, it seems to me that this article contains some serious errors regarding both the case and the law, specifically:

- The case; the judgement was a dismissal of Thorsten Nordenfeldt's appeal in its entirety. There was no question of severability, nor did the House of Lords make a distinction between a clause forbidding Nordenfeldt competing with Maxim in just the sale of ammo and guns, and a clause forbidding him to compete "any other way".

- The law; the case did not discuss 'severability' nor 'blue pencilling' (using those words or any other).

The judgement is laid out here, in full:

http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/1894AC535.html

I think this article therefore needs serious revision (mostly because many other websites around the net seem to be repeating its errors verbatim). I have not made any serious edit to the article myself in case, being only a student, I myself have missed some further case detail or made an error in the law. However, as it stands and having reviewed the case reports, I cannot believe this is so. I hope that someone more experienced law professional or academic will review this issue of the article. Hubertgrove (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The real question here is not whether the page faithfully distills the ratio decidendi but whether WP should be venturing into these waters at all. It shouldn't.  Interpretation of case law is most often a controversial matter, the very grist for the judicial and academic mill.  How can WP editors be relied upon to write legal textbook material?  They can't.  And that means the best they can do (to be technically within WP rules) is to paraphrase the textbooks.  Where's the value in that?  No, the page and all other case law synopsis pages on WP should be removed entirely.  This would be a good place to start.  sirlanz 14:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect, this is not an issue of legal interpretation. It's an issue of straight legal reporting. The larger subject you bring up here might be better raised in one of the forums where Wikipedia's content and editorial strategy are discussed. Hubertgrove (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The first lesson about legal reports is that they can be highly controversial; hence the system of official reports developed over the centuries.  It is absurd and ridiculous to put WP into the position of doing legal reporting or textbook writing.  Any unqualified non-legal editor can generate anything he/she likes on the page, so WP should not be even going there.  Attempting to report on a report is original legal textbook writing, so offends the first WP principle about original work and the second principle broken is that it is not encyclopaedic at all.  The debate you are seeking to get into here is a debate about original work, not about 3rd party factual sourcing and thus it is not a debate that should even begin.  How do you propose to show that the page content is wrong other than by doing original work?  sirlanz 03:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to have a debate on an irrelevant issue. I just wish this article to be corrected. For some reason, you're opposed to this and want a long and specious discussion about the status of Case Histories in Wikipedia. Polite request: take it somewhere else and don't clog this section with matters peripheral to the subject. Hubertgrove (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Talk page is a page whose very purpose is to house debates about content. You raised the matter and now you don't want to engage in debate about the substance of your issue.  Unfortunate.  In any event, you are an editor and at liberty to make changes.  So go ahead and do so.  Just ensure that you provide full sourcing support for any edits you do and be prepared not to simply avoid debate if there is a controversy of substance arising from those edits or accept reverts gracefully if and when they arise.  sirlanz 11:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)