This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This page appears to deal mainly with US law on criminal intention. Could someone please confirm whether this is so and make it clear on the page? Perhaps there ought to be an "Intention in US Law" article (to mirror "Intention in English Law"), leaving this one free to deal with criminal intention in general terms. 152.71.66.243.
"A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen."
This sentence does not make sense to me. I feel that "they foresee that it will happen" may be somehow out of skew by not starting the sentence with the word "When," as in, "When a person intends a consequence..." later followed by "...consequences, they foresee that it will happen." --Cyberman (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be some clarification in the sentence structure. --Cyberman (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever has written oblique intention seems to have instead covered the issue of 'intervening acts' which comes under causation.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was support for move. I think Anthony Appleyard's suggested modification is a good one, sewing up any ambiguity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Withdrawn by nom; nom later blocked as a sock. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Intention (criminal law) → Intention (law) – Reverse the redirect, shorter disambiguating phrase that has commonality with related articles e.g. Recklessness (law), Guilt (law). The longer phrase implies that Intention (civil law) would be different, which may be true but is unhelpful in the absence of such an article. For if not, Intention (law) is a badly named redirect and should be deleted by WP:RFD#D2 "may cause confusion". 85.67.32.244 (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Withdrawn by nominator. There are only two other editors' contributions to the discussion, both comment not !votes, but I'd prefer to propose a different new title, with a different rationale. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article is a real mess. It is mostly but not entirely about intent in English law. It only refers to common law jurisdictions, although presumably there is some equivalent concept in civil law. Move to Intention (common law)? Or split article into Intention (English law) and Intention (US law)? (The reference to Canadian law is a red herring: the editor has confused a Canadian case with an English case of the same name, and I have just correct this.) Havelock Jones (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd already linked the first; thanks for fixing R. v. Mohan: to be clear, I am not "the editor" who introduced it, but I plead guilty to not checking it.
I would agree that "common law" is better than "English law", since the article is broader than merely the law in England. I'm no legal eagle, but thefreedictionary.com's legal dictionary defines intent both in criminal law and in tort i.e. civil law.
Also, why is it "intention" and not "intent"? 85.67.32.244 (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about intention in civil law, if this article also going to deal with this I support but otherwise this may cause confusion even though intention is in legal terms most commonly associated with the criminal law. Recklessness (law) also discusses the civil law, in the United States section regarding bankruptcy. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've rcatted Intention (law) as {{R with possibilities}}. My point is, it may cause confusion to have a more-general redirect to a more-specific article. It's less confusing to have an "incomplete" article at that title (i.e. an article that does not currently deal well with civil law), because WP:Wikipedia is not finished. And, per WP:NCDAB, "If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler." (My italics.)
Again, I wonder why Intent is a redirect to Intention but the DAB page is at Intent (disambiguation), not Intention (disambiguation) which as I write is red (I've no objection to a redirect being created). Intent was moved to Intention in 2013, short unopposed proposal here. We're trying to have it both ways: saying "intent" and "intention" are different things, then muddling them together at the disambiguation page. Specifically in common law, I think the phrase is usually "with intent", not "with intention", for example Loitering with intent, Assault with intent to rob. The article covers this, and I've created an anchor at § With intent. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Updated 85.67.32.244 (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the lede starts "In criminal law, intent is"... (article's bold), and the first section, § Definitions, starts "Intent is defined in English law by..." On the whole, the word "intent" is used 76 times and "intention" only 8. It seems clear to me that this topic properly deserves the title "Intent" (with or without a disambiguating phrase). Therefore I beg to withdraw this nomination and I'll open another. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the title of this article Intention rather than Intent? The term intent is used uniformly throughout the body of the text; the only time intention is used is in reference to a separate article, Intention in English law. ajad (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
