Talk:Malice (law)

England and Wales

In the law, England and Wales is a single state and "English law" is the recognised term of art used more or less consistently throughout the entire academic literature on law. As I recall, Hallsbury may desribe the listing on the title page as the "Law of England and Wales" but no-one that I have ever met before has ever used the phrase "English and Welsh law". This is not, nor has it ever been, a recognised term of art. And, with the greatest respect, the fact that one of the cases happens to have a Welsh town as one of the parties is hardly a relevant criterion for mentioning Welsh law. The legal system is administered from Westminster and the law applied is English. My apologies, I wish that what you are proposing would make legal sense so that Wales could be mentioned, but since what we are trying to do in Wiki is to provide a good verifiable academic standard, I cannot agree to any requests to amend the term of art. David91 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for taking the time to explain this to me, so what about the following.

In English civil law (being the law of England and Wales), relevant case law in negligence and misfeasance...........

This i belive will clear up understanding in terms of duristiction (sp) without afecting the 'term of art' i hope that this would be an acceptible alteration to the article.--Happyhaydn 03:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no problem with your proposed amendment. Thank you for being so understanding. =) David91 07:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malice

Does this basically mean, if someone says they are going to hit me and threating me with violence. Does that mean they are Malicing me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.25.201 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malice is a worddefining mean and hateful. For exmple when you are at a play and someone starts to clap when not suppose to that is malice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.191.118 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malice

Malice is hateful or very bad. For example if someone is malice its like if someone purposely is clapping at a play when not to soppose to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.191.118 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 leave the plain name as the disambig page Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malice (legal term) → Malice — Seems to be primary use, WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. — 128.232.1.193 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, there are films and games named "Malice", but none of them are major hits. I think the legal term is the primary meaning that someone would expect to find in an encyclopedia. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: in February, someone changed the redirect at Malice to point to Malice (legal term). No-one has been bothered by this until now, nine months later. 128.232.1.193 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The following was a contested move proposal at WP:RM: (moved by 128.232.1.193 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Malice (legal term) → Malice — Malice currently redirects to Malice (legal term). As the legal term has been identified as the primary article, the qualifier "(legal term)" is unnecessary. Neelix (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the disambiguation page was moved without discussion and nobody noticed to object doesn't mean the term is a primary topic. On the face of it some discussion to validate the primary topic status is warranted. Or, in the absence of any discussion or evidence, I'd suggest that the proposal should be to move the disambiguation page back to the base term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.1.193 (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not be; if there is a primary sense of malice, it is the emotion. But there may not be one; either way I oppose this move, and recommend the move of the dab page to Malice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The emotion definition of malice is not notable enough (in an encyclopedia sense) to even have an entry here. Of the uses that are notable, clearly the legal sense is much more used than any other, and thus is primary. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per nom. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strongly Oppose. No evidence that the legal usage is most common, much less primary usage in our sense. Where there is no primary usage, the plain name should be the disambiguation page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the legal usage is the primary usage? When you consider that the 1993 film and every reference to the term in a book title (as near as I can tell) refers to the legal usage, I can't find hardly any other usages in the google results, certainly nothing nearly as notable. Can you? The primary usage standard is much more used than any other. What kind of evidence do you need to realize that the legal usage clearly meets this criteria? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence that it is 80% to 90% of all usage of the term, which it is not. The root sense of malice, malitia, "ill-will", may be primary usage; if that is not, nothing is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get this "80% to 90% of all usage" criteria"? The criteria cited at WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is "significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings". The "ill-will" dictionary meaning you speak of is not even covered as a topic at Wikipedia, which means it's not read at all. Among the uses that are searched for and read, clearly the legal meaning is significantly more commonly searched for than other meanings, as made evident by a google search for "malice". --Born2cycle (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whence? From observing practice, which is the basis of all guidelines. User:Robert A West analysed the logic here: unless it is 80% likely that we are giving the reader the right article, we should not drag him through the wrong article, especially since some readers will miss or misunderstand hatnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have no where to send the reader who is looking for the emotion since we don't have an article on that topic. So, of those we can help, surely far more than 80% are looking for the legal term, and a hat note to the film and other uses should more than adequate for handling the remainder. I mean, let's be reasonable. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For precedence that contradicts PMAnderson's argument, see Nice. Clearly the adjective meaning pleasant is the primary usage of "nice" in the English language, but we don't have an article on that topic in Wikipedia since this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. Of all usages that are relevant to Wikipedia, clearly the city in France has primary usage, which is why that article is at Nice. The situation is very similar for the legal term, malice. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the !votes should be in the Survey section, not the Discussion section, no? But following along here, Oppose. Quite apart from the dictionary definition, there are several terms on the disambiguation page and no convincing evidence that the legal term is significantly more likely to be what readers might expect. If anything, I'd suggest that the 1993 film is more widely known than the legal term. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That film is an example of the legal term usage! --Born2cycle (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative use is not relevant. That logic would also support keeping Plymouth, England at Plymouth, since all the other uses directly or indirectly derive from the original placename. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh? Plymouth, England is at Plymouth. 87.115.80.23 (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it has been the subject of considerable discussion. Many, including myself and Serge, do not support having the English city at the plain name. older ≠ wiser 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that the movie title is an example of use of the word as the legal term. Anyway, at least according to google results (see below), the film is not that widely known (I, for one, had never heard of it). Also, I started looking at Wikipedia links to Malice and I'm finding many of them are clearly references to the legal term, and have started fixing them 1 2. Of course a quicker fix would be to move this page to Malice... There are also examples of links to Malice for the noun, which should go to the wiktionary entry (if they are to be links at all) 3. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And all I'm saying is that the term is ambiguous. It matters little whether the film is an example of the use of the legal term (or of the common dictionary definition). If a person is looking for the film (or any of the other things named Malice), placing the legal term as the primary topic is not going to help. Having the disambiguation page at the base term is the correct placement. The fact that people create links that should go to wiktionary is merely an additional indication that the legal term is not the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 16:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google results

I'm trying some different google searches to try and ascertain the relative popularity of searches for the legal term and the film.

Alec Baldwin is the main star in the film, so restricting the search for Malice to include his name might be a reasonable way to get a feel for the popularity of the film relative to other uses.

Results 1 - 10 of about 41,700 for Malice +"Alec Baldwin"

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,890,000 for Malice -"Alec Baldwin"

Including the year of the film, 1993, might be illustrative as well:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,020,000 for Malice +1993

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,350,000 for Malice -1993

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,310,000 for Malice -1993 -"Alec Baldwin"

Results 1 - 10 of about 14,800 for Malice +1993 +"Alec Baldwin"

Note that if you add the 41k hits on Alec Baldwin to the 1.20M hits with the year of the movie (which would include the 15k that references both) you still get a much smaller number than the 8.3M hits produced when excluding 1993 as well as Alec Baldwin.

Now let's try to limit the search to the legal term:

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,150,000 for Malice +law.

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,960,000 for Malice +law -"Alec Baldwin" -1993.

So if we search for Malice references that include references to the law, but exclude all hits that reference either Alec Baldwin or the year the film was made, 1993, we still get about 4M hits. But if we search for articles about the film, references that include both Alec Baldwin as well as the year, we get only 14,800. It seems pretty clear to me, at least according to google searches, that the legal use is much more prevalent than the film, and meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria of "significantly more commonly searched for and read". --Born2cycle (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not seriously suggesting that the film should be the primary topic. Only that there is still no convincing evidence that the legal term is the primary topic. If you examine the first several pages of Google results for Malice, few of them are explicitly about the legal term. Even your Google results indicate that of the approximately 9 million hits for the term, only approximately half that number are returned when limited to Malice +law. The term is ambiguous and having the disambiguation page at the base term is appropriate. older ≠ wiser 16:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

First sentence is wrong isn't it?

I'm not a lawyer but the first paragraph says there is express malice only when there is deliberate killing of a person.

I'm pretty sure there are all kind so express malice. I think all I've got to do is punch you out for no reason.

Am I wrong? Murder is one example of express malice, but not the only one.

Badly written, someone should fix it but I am not a lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.118 (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can malice lead to contamination?

Can malice lead to contamination? Can contamination also lead to malice what my mom told me? 112.209.65.184 (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malice (law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313092450/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000518/rivers-1.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000518/rivers-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]