Talk:Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart

Overhaul
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.  Wik idea  09:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I'm afraid if you can't work collaboratively, then you'll get nowhere. Let's hope you don't have WP:OWN problems.  Wik idea  20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For a good layout, see Carlill v Carbolic  Wik idea  20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.  Wik idea  16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * 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.  Wik idea  16:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I have to waste my time explaining this.  Wik idea  16:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.  Wik idea  18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how it is original research? Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What to do.
If you want to change the facts and judgment sections, the best thing to do is take the useful additions and put them into those sections. I would be careful to ensure that what is added is really worth saying. Also, the intro is as the latest changes were made on it - but it's too long by far. Shorter is better.  Wik idea  13:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okaey, how about this. You give me free reign on this article until my current FAC, passes, and I submit this (after a third-party GAR). We both agree the lead needs to be cut down, the question is the length and the judgment. If the FAC people pass it without length quibbles or a request for the blockquote judgment, we leave it (after all, the problem is that it "looks like a good article but isn't", according to you). If quibbles are brought up by people outside the WP:LAW discussion about said length and blockquote, I give you free reign to do whatever you want to the article. Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you keep three main sections (facts, judgment, significance - the latter two you can of course split into subsections), and you leave in quotes from the judges, I don't see any major problems.
 * Lord Griffiths' quote, can of course be trimmed, but hearing it from the judge is usually far more informative. And as I've said repeatedly, you had some good material otherwise, eg your summaries of what the different judges said. These case summaries will work best when it's like what you find in a good casebook.
 * But you also need to take into account the points I've made above, particularly about uninformative additions and the way you refer to articles.
 * Lastly, you need to understand you cannot just toss out good material, and expect nobody to object. You need to be collaborative and accomodating, and you need to listen. You do not have free reign on anything. I'm interested in writing good, usable material, not in negotiating about your ambition to get lots of FA stars and green circles.  Wik idea  14:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for that. 1) it isn't "ambition" and 2) suprisingly enough, an FA normally translates as "good, useable material". Your "you can keep it like this if you want" is the wholesale reversion of my changes apart from the wider significance! Your version now has an unreferenced lead section, no record of the prior court proceedings and so little information on the facts that it's near unusable. Return to my additional version, complete a full GAR setting down the problems point-by-point and I'll answer them one by one, but things like "If you want to change the facts and judgment sections, the best thing to do is take the useful additions and put them into those sections. I would be careful to ensure that what is added is really worth saying." are as uninformative as you say my additions are. What do you see as useful sections? What do you mean "really worth saying?" and so on. Ironholds (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and read WP:MOSLAW when you have a free minutes free of stabbing me in the back. Considerations: "Provide some depth and detail worthy of an encyclopedia", "Start with a summary why the case is encyclopedic. What is its impact on society, what makes it stand out from all the other cases heard this year?", "Summary in fairly plain language, for a lay audience, possibly followed by a more detailed introduction. For those who do not read the whole decision, this is sufficient for a start.", "the legal details, for those who need to better understand the legal issues involved and how the court arrived at its decision." - these were all included, but according to you detail is unnecessary and it should be set up like a case in a textbook. Quoth the MoS, "Wikipedia is not a guide for law students – try Wikibooks if you want to write a textbook". Perhaps it's time you admit you were wrong. Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop moaning. You're not getting "stabbed" anywhere. I'm not interested in arguing over feelings, though I'm very sorry if you're upset. But I will object when I think the work being done isn't good. And I will repeat - I do think a lot of the work you are doing is good. You must learn to accept criticism and work with it.  Wik idea  15:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my above post. The only changes you want I disagree with violate the MoS. Comments? Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further work
Now there's nothing that wasn't there before, except for some of the obviously non-useful sentences. Further work includes,


 * (1) the introduction is too long, repetitive and pointless
 * (2) the references to books for what judges are saying are not useful or informative or good practice. They should all be replaced with references to page numbers in the reports
 * (3) I haven't attempted to go through the rest, in the "significance" section, but it probably contains a lot of extra and unnecessary verbiage.

And Ironholds, next time you want to contribute, don't try and thrust your pre-packaged stuff on other people, and then refuse to listen when they object. It's better, but you've wasted a lot of my time with your arguments.  Wik idea  21:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * May I suggest an easier way to work this out? I've set up a sandbox at Talk:Pepper v Hart/test. We both agree that the lead should be shortened, so I've done so. We disagree on whether third-party quotations are more efficient than quoting the judgment, but quoting the judgment can't hurt, so I've included bits of the judgment instead of third-party recollections. I feel that Browne-Wilkinson is more appropriate; the gist of the Lords' point can be got across using his judgment, and as the main one it is his that is referred to by academics. I have no problem with re-titling the rest to "Significance", so I have done so. I would suggest that the test draft is a middle-point for both our particular opinions; if you have any problems with it, we can work them out on this talkpage and make changes to it when we both agree. Once we're both at a middle-point, we can paste it into the main article and both be happy. As said, I have now learned that in future I should query you before making wholesale changes to your pages. Hopefully this idea is a compromise we can both agree to. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, first, I think your version of the lead is just fine. Please put it in.
 * Second, you know I think "facts" is the more appropriate heading; I say that because it is better to have a simple description of the case's facts; if you try to go into the prior history of the law in the area - which presumably is why you want to call it "background" - it doesn't read as well. That's more appropriate either for the lead, or when you're explaining the case's significance.


 * Maybe if we split up "facts" and "legal background"? Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's fine, if you want to name it legal background under the "significance" heading. It's important that readers have a concise description of the facts at the start (and if that holds interest, they can scroll down to the background).
 * I'd say facts, and then legal background after that; otherwise the user is having to work back-and-forth, and the discussion in the "judgment" section doesn't necessarily make sense ("hansard? but they were discussing the 1976 Finance Act!"). Ironholds (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can surely give taste of the background in the intro - and then elaborate on it after describing the facts and the judgment. Describing the facts of the case is like answering this question: what happened? Some background is always going to come up in the facts where it's pertinent - often people's claims will be based on what the pre-existing law was. The golden rule for answering a problem question is always to ask, who wants what on the basis of what law? But "facts" is the appropriate, simple and clear heading for describing what happened. You can always elaborate on further background under the significance part, and introduce it in the introduction.  Wik idea  01:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I can has solution! I'll have a section under Significance titled "Impact on the law" or similar, which lays out the historical situation and exactly what change Pepper made to it, followed by the sections on assessment and further developments. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Third, you know I think "judgment" is the more appropriate heading, rather than "court proceedings"; I say that because what should be described are the judgments, and because "court proceedings" would indicate the submissions of counsel and the debate (not the judgments).


 * "Court decision" or "decisions", maybe? That way it includes the points made by previous courts, but doesn't imply counsel's arguments and the like.
 * Life is short. Judgment is accurate - and subheadings can split up judgments from the courts' hierarchy. I often include what the counsel argued for the appeal at the end of the description of the lower court's judgment. It's just following what good case books do.  Wik idea  01:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Judgment" it is, then. Are we going to keep the "Heard in Court X by Y J" bits? Ironholds (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Last, there is hardly anything removed from your version in the way the current page looks. Please look it over. If you can agree on these main points, then I've got no problem - especially if you want to reduce the length of the Lord Griffiths extract.  Wik idea  23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll note that I'm using Browne-Wilkinson, not Griffiths. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in your lead, you've got this style of using semi-colons, which isn't useful. I've said it before above, it's just easier and clearer to use a full stop. Lord Denning and Lord Mansfield were masters of the full stop. I think you know this! Try to write like them.  Wik idea  23:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll tweak it. As it happens, Mansfield was also famously inaccurate when writing, but that's not related to your main point :P. I'll get on to that when I have a moment (see below). Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing: if you're going to chop Lord Griffiths, I think the essential point he's making is in the first three paragraphs, regarding a purposive interpretation. This was such an important judgment because it reasserted the purposive approach to statutory interpretation - cf Salomon v Salomon (a literal interpretation) and Heydon's case (mischief rule), or Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd.
 * Point: I'll include his point after Browne-Wilkinson's and before Mackay's, if you're fine with that. This work will all be done either tomorrow morning or on Monday; I'm in North Carolina over the weekend. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Righto, your opinion of the current version in the sandbox? I'm up for keeping the royal crest as the image, if that's alright with you; it's standard practice in a lot of other case articles in similar common law jurisdictions, and I don't feel the Malvern image really illustrates it very well. It's difficult to tell what the picture actually is, for one thing, and it simply seems a bit irrelevant to the matters discussed. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First, a note that I have tried to include your suggestions. As pot-kettle as this might sound, your tone is a teensy bit off.
 * 1) Your version deletes references to the case report's specific pages in the judgments. It shouldn't.
 * 2) You're still using a book pages to cite for things which should come from the report.
 * 3) You should split up the High Court and Court of Appeal judgment as I'd done. People might find it useful to expand on them later, and there's no reason to not have two sections.
 * 4) I don't see your point in changing the way the facts are now. If anything it's more cumbersome (you've just put back your original version), eg the Finance Act 1963 not in a note. There's also at least three punctuation errors. The current version is superior.
 * 5) I've got no idea why you want to rename the end sections as "references" and "bibliography". It's "notes" and "references" according to WP:STYLE, and it's that way now. There's a good reason: notes are notes (and the page could be short or long, so either foot - or endnotes), references are the sources.
 * 6) The picture is fine. If you've got a better picture, by all means put that in. If not, it's better than the crest or nothing, because a picture will be memorable for readers.
 * 7) You're continuing to use semi-colons everywhere. It's bad punctuation and grammar. You should use full stops.  Wik  idea  16:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Noted; my apologies. Fixed.
 * 2) Could you indicate precise points? Other than the quotations in the significance section, are there any bits where I've added third-party sources instead of the primary reports?
 * 3) There's not really much to expand them with. We could use quotations from their judgments, but since neither dealt with the Hansard issue (which was discovered during the Lords' first hearing) it'd be rather irrelevant.
 * Just keep the ones I had in. As a rule, references shouldn't come from books/articles unless they're opinions of the author. Points of law should be cited from the law - the section, or the case report's page.


 * 1) I'm not sure exactly how I can cut that down without ending up with a two-line summation of the facts. In regards to punctuation, it would be more useful to me if you pointed them out as opposed to simply stating that they are there.
 * Just keep it the way it was then.


 * 1) Could you link to the precise section/quote? I couldn't find it. I'm not trying to be obtuse, it's simply that if this is contrary to the Manual of Style I've got around 500 articles to correct :P.
 * and otherwise, it's fine the way it is.


 * 1) The picture is dark and rather indistinguishable; it is, as far as anyone can tell, the side of a brick building. I'm not sure how that's any use to the reader in an article about a legal case on legislative interpretation. The Royal Crest is at least relevant to the main subject of the article.
 * Pick another picture - I don't mind, but something is better than noting


 * 1) I'll try and fix those. Some seem necessary; "The Inland Revenue, attempting to tax this benefit, argued that the "cost" of the benefit meant an average of the cost of providing it; if there were 100 pupils at a school that cost £1,000,000 a year to run, the "cost" per pupil was £10,000." for example. Perhaps a colon there would be more acceptable? Again, the use of semi-colons has been effectively vetted by the featured article peeps, and there's nothing anywhere saying they shouldn't be used. Still, cooperation is the name of the game. I'll try and fix those I see. Ironholds (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, tweaked. Any further comments, or shall I paste it in? An independent GAN normally clears up any prose iffy bits. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, and you should make incremental amendments to what exists there. You've not taken on board my points, and I've given up repeating myself.  Wik idea  13:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So I should be amending the existing version, not the draft we've fixed up? I've changed the referencing system, I'll keep your image (since I can't find anything else). If by "points of law" you mean "the cases cited in, say, the historical section", I don't see why third-party references written by Cambridge professors are inappropriate. Referencing cases is nice, but in some of those the report is likely to be either in old English and unreadable or simply inaccessible. BAILII, for example, is not noted for containing 18th century case reports. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not been us working on it, it's been you. And you've not taken on board my points, and I've given up repeating myself.  Wik idea  09:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article itself you've seen I've made many of the changes you've suggested, and I'm perfectly willing to keep your image. If I've missed things off, tell me, but giving up benefits neither of us. Ironholds (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Brief comments from ImperfectlyInformed
I don't really have a lot to say, but I do think the article is looking pretty good. As I've said before I don't really feel comfortable giving a good article approval if I can't access the sources and don't have prior experience in the area. I may make an exception.
 * 1) I restored the lead's summary of the Significance section. The body should introduce and summarize the major parts of the article. Feel free to tweak the paragraph, but some mention is essential.
 * 2) In the discussion on this article, the people at WP:LAW did not think really long blockquotes were appropriate. If this was a law textbook, sure, but it's not...
 * 3) I don't really care about the picture, although to be honest I prefer the brick building.
 * 4) I agree with Wikidea about Notes and References versus References and Bibliography.
 * 5) I'm impressed at how you two have been working together.
 * 6) I agree with Wikidea that full stops should be used, as semicolons can lead to circumlocutious legalese. I'm not seeing it as a major problem in this article, however.  II  | (t - c) 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried to use short blockquotes. Your changes are actually likely to be rather pointless; the version currently at Pepper v Hart is not the final version; nobody believes that. See Talk:Pepper v Hart/test. Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that seems to have come out rather rudely! I do appreciate your work, but I'd suggest comments be directed at the draft page we're working up rather than the current version. Ironholds (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. It's the last version for now. If you want to make changes you'll have to do so incrementally.  Wik idea  13:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may drop in an opinion here, having been pointed to it - I agree pretty much on the blockquotes issue. If I read an article about a case, I'd prefer to be told a summary what the outcome of the case was rather given than a direct quote of the ruling, which to a non-specialist is a) a bit daunting to read, and b) potentially very confusing - if you aren't used to reading them, it's very easy to get the wrong end of the stick and completely misread what the ruling is actually saying. And, of course, most of our readers (we hope) will be interested non-specialists! Hosting complete rulings - if we can do so legitimately, which for a 90s case is an interesting question - is definitely better than not doing so, but it might be best to put them on wikisource; we can then easily refer to them there without overloading the article.
 * The current /test version looks much better in that regard - the quotes are shortened and serve to emphasise the discursive text, rather than having the discursive text a mere gloss on the quote. Good way to go about it. Shimgray | talk | 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mastermind
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)
 * Agree completely; the current draft version misses it out. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Put it in a footnote. It's interesting. It makes people remember the case.  Wik idea  17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * I see elsewhere that comments are wanted for this article. I was looking it over the other day and the first thing that struck me was that little was said about Messrs Pepper and Hart - neither their sex nor their given names.  Returning, I notice this section and I am strongly of the opinion that we should add any such ancillary detail about the parties which we may have.  Wikipedia is not a legal textbook and such details provide good context by giving us a feel for the character and quality of the parties. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * if such details can be referenced. As far as I'm aware, they can't. We know almost nothing about Messrs Pepper and Hart because they're unimportant; sources on this case report the facts as they pertain to the case (that Pepper was a schoolteacher, that Hart was the commissioner for taxes) and have little interest in personal irrelevancies. While this doesn't mean we should take a similar line, it does make it difficult to find a source that provides such trivia. Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Preferred version
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)
 * Sounds like a good compromise and a positive way forward. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a bit of both. And Ironholds if people get tired of you, it's not necessarily their fault. I've told you what I think, and if you put that in, with all it's mistakes, I will simply revert it. It's not bad, but it's also not different to what's there. I've told you, change the page incrementally.  Wik idea  09:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Never said it was, and I note that you're the only WP user I've so far exhausted. None of the other editors have had a particular problem with my content work. If consensus comes back against your current version, you should not revert; it's considered edit-warring, something you've had prior experience with. I have no interest in editing against consensus, which is why I opened this section in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support the version prepared by User:Ironholds as a substantial improvement on the current article which seems to follow the unfortunate pattern set by many of these case-related articles, namely the lifting of large chunks from the judgment regardless of whether they actually inform the reader. I take a very dim view of threats to revert content added on the basis of consensus. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No real opinion on most style issues, but that quote is just way too long, and external links should be replaced with internal ones when possible. So Ironholds' version is superior in those regards. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support the article written by Ironholds is of significant improvement. See above support rationale(s).  IShadowed  ✰  21:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support IH's version. It has a tighter lede, suffers less from giant walls of text and provides a little more accuracy on some points. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done for recruiting some of your little buddies, none of whom is a lawyer, a couple who aren't English, or has I would expect heard about Pepper v Hart, or knows anything about the topic. I'll have a look again, and make some changes later. If you had followed the changes I made to begin with, Ironholds, you'd see the two aren't so different. I wish you'd be a little more mature.  Wik idea  12:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Please grow up.  Wik idea  16:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Preferred citation style
Which one do you prefer, this or this? 50.19.78.29 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

How Many Judges Make Five?
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.  Cottonshirt  τ   04:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

Judiciary surely?
"...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)


 * 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)


 * Ah yes, I see. A very dodgy decision! David (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Three Rivers
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)

praise
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)