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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.
The pages for Jarndyce and Jarndyce and Jarndyce v Jarndyce have been vandalised. On 5 July 2012, someone changed all the instances of "Jarndyce and Jarndyce" - including in the quotations from Dickens' novel - in the article to "Jarndyce v Jarndyce". Then on 16 April 2013 an idiot called 'Douglas the Comeback Kid' swapped over the main article and the re-direct page. Can someone correct all this please? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I have read (source no longer available) that `Jarndyce' was a common pronunciation of `jaundice' in the 18th & early 19th century. It may be worth adding this to the article if it can be backed up by a reliable source. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved after discussion ran 38 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Jarndyce v Jarndyce → Jarndyce and Jarndyce - In Bleak House Dickens always refers to the case as "Jarndyce and Jarndyce". Gutenberg and my printed edition use "and". The quote in the article is actually a misquote. Both source and targets have a history so an admin merge (and probably some clever history merging) will probably be necessary. Someone changed to the wrong title recently so I am assuming my request is potentially controversial. Thincat (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment. British court cases are usually written as "Jarndyce v Jarndyce", but spoken as "Jarndyce and Jarndyce". So both are technically correct. We therefore have to balance what Dickens (who tended, of course, to write colloquially) called it against what the case would actually have been called if it had really existed. I'm neutral. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Necrothesp. Furthermore, WP:CRITERIA says titles should be recognizable. The current title looks like a legal case; the proposed title looks like a business partnership or something. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment, the topic of the article is, of course, neither a legal case nor a business partnership. It is a storyline in a book. However, I did not know that "v." is spoken as "and", I just thought they were variations on how a case is cited, based on some legal technicality unknown to me. I can quite understand Dickens (who was very familiar with court procedure) would write what people would say while fully knowing the "correct" way to write it. So, with redirects, it doesn't much matter how we deal with it. I'd like to put a footnote about this into the article. Does anyone know of a good reference to "v." being spoken as "and"? BTW some sensible person has meantime corrected the quotations in the article. Thincat (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is how it's written in the book and it's much more common in the sources, per this Google Ngram. See also this book, which discusses this plot element as "Jarndyce and Jarndyce".--Cúchullaint/c 00:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
How interesting. the "v" is more frequently used with the stop than without it but "and" is still more common.Thincat (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Move to Jarndyce and Jarndyce (fictional court case). All shorter versions are prone to mislead readers who think they recognize the type of article it is, and misleading the readers is very bad. We can afford the space for the extra characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The only problem, of course, is that there's precisely nothing to disambiguate against! --BDD (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
That's an artificial problem and therefore not a problem at all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting choice of words, since your proposal is also about addressing an artificial problem. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It should stay. I should perhaps have explained why I moved this - although colloquially in the UK we always say "and" (like Fisher and Bell) when we write it we always use "v" (eg Fisher v Bell). So I don't have the passage of Bleak House in front of me, but if you read Dickens writing with other people saying "Jarndyce and Jarndyce", this wouldn't change the fact that the proper way to write it would be Jarndyce v Jarndyce. Hope that makes sense! The redirect still works, though right?
But let me add, I don't really think it makes much difference what you do. If you have a look at Google Scholar, 575 articles are found with "Jarndyce v Jarndyce" while 585 are found with "and" - and those are presumably mostly English journals or people quoting from the text of Dickens himself. Unfortunately I don't have any sources for why we say "and" instead of "v". Just long habit. Wikidea 11:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Support move. Although an actual court case would be called Jarndyce v Jarndyce, this isn't an actual court case. Articles on fictional characters are not covered by the naming guidelines for biographical articles, so an article on a fictional lawsuit need not be subject to the same naming conventions as a real one would be. Dickens always writes Jarndyce and Jarndyce, so that's where the article should be. Would you move The Faerie Queene to The Fairy Queen just because that would be "the proper way to write it" today? No you wouldn't, and the principle is the same here. Opera hat (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I believe that it should be left as "J and J", as Dickens wrote it. However, in terms of how "J v J" would be read, I'm in Canada, and I've always heard lawyers say the letter 'v', rather than use the word 'versus', let alone 'and'. Thus "J vee J". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
In the move discussion above it seemed to be accepted that (in Britain by implication) it is written as "v" and spoken as "and". I would really like to find a reliable source on this that can be quoted. However, I agree with you that as the article is about a Dickens storyline we should follow what Dickens wrote. Thincat (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)