Talk:Lloyds Bank Limited v Bundy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lloyds Bank Limited v Bundy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Too many quotations[edit]

This article contains an unacceptable ratio of quoted text to descriptive material, regardless of this assertion that its being a "seminal judgment" somehow excuses it from our content guidelines. While it is important that its contents are well-referenced, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and articles cannot consist primarily of material taken directly from the subject itself. I'll be re-tagging it as such if this isn't remedied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about the lack of sources. Only a single source exists at the moment. Is that all that's available?--RadioFan (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, I write hundreds of these cases. Chris, please understand. Wikipedia is a useful tool for exactly this. There is nothing wrong with quoting part of the judgment. If you've got any friends doing law, then ask them about casebooks, or have a look at one in the library. That's the aim. And RadioFan, for the third time, the report is a reference. Wik idea 15:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question that report as a reference, I'm wondering if it's the only reference available. All articles need to meet notability guidlines which includes significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No there are lots of books. But you did put a tag saying references were lacking. Every law book will talk about this case. You can find them too! Wik idea 16:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put in a few for you if you like. Is the references section ok? Wik idea 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many you've written - these are articles, not case notes, and whether Wikipedia is a "useful tool" to store them in or not is irrelevant. If you can point me to a relevant style guideline on Wikipedia which waives the need for articles on legal cases to contain no more quotable material than is necessary, and to be written primarily from the point of view of existing secondary sources and not be drawn from the research of its editors upon primary sources then I'll be more than happy to step back. Until then, it should be tagged for any issues as with any other article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Chris, you're not asking the main question: is this useful for readers? This isn't quoting the whole report (it's quite long!) just an extract from the main part of the judgment; and you were right that we probably didn't need Lord Denning's rehash of the facts too. The style guides may or may not help (I don't think you'll find anything saying you can't have extracts), but they should reflect what this encyclopedia is most useful for. Are you interested in doing some law? If you did a degree you'd be using casebooks which do the same thing as here. There'd be a summary of the facts, and the judgment, and then the relevant extract from the judge's reasoning. Why don't you see what people think on Wikiproject law? Not all articles are the same, are they? Wik idea 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the responsibility of the editor additing the material to properly source it. Lumping them in the references section is not best, please footnote them.--RadioFan (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion quoting the judgement is perfectly valid; I've certainly seen it done on every other law article. The whole thing isn't quoted, of course, but the judgement is the most important bit. As for references, I'll try and pick some out in a bit. Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more stuff and some references. Really it needs a massive overhaul; sentence structure is choppy (it reads like one of Lord Denning's judgements), referencing is awful and you really need to be a law student to get quite a bit of this stuff. I'm planning on completely rewriting our articles on English contract law come the end of exam season, and I'll make sure this falls within that. Wikidea, I'd suggest you use standard referencing in the future. You reference the texts in a "references" section, and then specific cites (McKendrick (2007) p.368, for example) in an inline form, which should then be displayed under a "Notes" heading. It is no good simply putting p.367-368 in the main reference because it doesn't allow the reader to see what statement is from what text. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]