Talk:Unus testis, nullus testis

Weasel wording and revert
Regarding this revert, I see the point around this fitting the exception in WP:WEASEL but I still have concerns.


 * 1) I don't love our use of a reference that points to controversy without specifically pointing to one. We should be striving to dig deeper and find/reference the critical analyses that Coan is vaguely referring to. Can we not point to any specific examples of this being criticized?
 * 2) At 23 years old it's getting rather dated for the information it is supporting. A lot of things have changed in this area since 2000, e.g. the MeToo movement. Has not one other scholar commented on this in the last two decades?

As it stands, I would at least cite the scholar in text, saying something like "In 2000, Christin Coan noted that this rule has been criticized, especially in cases like rape where often only the perpetrator and the victim are present." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply and in general I would quite agree with your sentiment. In this case, however, additional material on unus testis, nullus testis is unfortunately very hard to come by, as it is an ancient rule with seldom new scholarship on it (some older Italian works probably exist - alas I speak no Italian). If you find something which I overlooked, I would be very happy if you incorporate it in the article. In the meantime I will gladly take up your helpful proposal and edit the article accordingly. WatkynBassett (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did some Googling at your suggestions and am empathizing with your point about the obscurity of the rule. It also seems like one would need to be able to read Dutch to understand most of the references on this! This has some interesting info + includes a specific 1954 case where this was invoked + info from a 2009 Supreme Court case that shows a potentially stricter interpretation, and this has more info on that last point, but I'm not seeing much more in the 21st century. Google Scholar has a bit more happening, including this. But nothing really speaks to my points above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking Dutch would indeed be very helpful... If you want to incorporate your material on the Dutch law section, I would welcome that. I considered adding the 2023 journal article myself when I was compiling the article, but I was unsure whether the Religions-Journal was predatory and thus abstained from using it. Happy editing! WatkynBassett (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)