From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Editorial decisions[edit]

I felt that this deserved a short entry on its own but, as it is a somewhat complex topic (filling several books and many articles), I thought it best to keep it short so as not to overburden the lay reader with unnecessary(?) complexity. However, I have no right to hold this view and you all have the right to add if you think fit. -David91 09:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this topic is misspelled and should be renamed/moved. Hohfeld spells it "correlative" throughout Fundamental Legal Conceptions. Is the topic author British, by any chance? Thanks much.

 Facetious nickname 5 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that I have misremembered. It must be at least thirty years since I last opened a book on this. However, I am not alone: albeit that it seems I am in a minority. I leave it to your good judgment as to whether you are going to change co-relations to the more modern correlative (if that is what it is) just as I updated conceptions to concepts. My hard copy dictionary also confirms this single 'r' spelling so I suppose it must be another of these pesky American English versus the world issues. Since Hohfeld was American, perhaps out of respect, we ought to change it to the US spelling? The world is not going to end whichever way you decide. -David91 5 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)

Very civil of you. I would again suggest that 'corelative' is a British spelling and that the spelling from Hohfeld's original articles in the Yale L. J. should be preferred. As the article you point to was written by the "Honorable Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Pune, India," it is not surprising to find the word spelled in the British style. But, finally, you are surely right that the world's fate doesn't hinge on this particular issue! :-) Facetious nickname 5 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Being new to Wiki, could you clarify the principle for me. To change only the one word and leave its context as non-American grammar and spelling would seem to be incorrect in principle. So do I assume that all the pages in which Hofeld's cor(r)elative is mentioned must also be rewritten so that each context matches the one instance? -David91 6 July 2005 05:58 (UTC)

Yes, I figured if the move went through I would dash through and change the other instances of corelative. Facetious nickname 6 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

But, the question I asked remains unanswered, If you do that, it will be the sole U.S. spelling on the pages I wrote (unless someone has been changing things recently). I thought there was a Wiki policy about style consistency on each page? I'm not that worried about it, just curious about how things work around here. For example, on the Civil Rights page, almost all the text is non-U.S. spelling and syntax. . . ? -David91 6 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

Hm. I didn't see all of that. Yeah, might be kind of a pain to change all of them. No, I don't think that changing just 'corelative' would pose issues of stylistic consistency. Hohfeld uses it as a term of art, not a generic concept, and as such it should be spelled the way he spelled it. It's more of a misquotation than a local usage or variant spelling. It's not like using "colour" instead of "color" (unless you were discussing someone's "Color Theory of Jurisprudence" or somesuch, which would be a similar error). Facetious nickname 6 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

I can't see any consensus for this move, and Wikipedia policy is to use the same variant of English as the article was created with. The result is not moved. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)