Talk:Reasonable man

Merger

This article ought not to have a life outside the concept of the "reasonable man" which is the legal terms Bowen LJ was trying to explain by reference to "the man on the clapham omnibus". It should be mergeed there. ElectricRay 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Although the concept of "reasonable man" is closely aligned, it has a life of its own as a term. Both articles need to be expanded -- indeed "reasonable man" needs to be created. Ringbark 08:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Reasonable man article already. I don't understand what "life of its own" "the man on the Clapham omnibus" has, outside being a description of a reasonable man. Do elaborate. (I don't think the reference to Friedrich Kekulé's dream contained herein is (of itself) especially interesting or noteworthy, though a reference to it in the article about Friedrich Kekulé wouldn't be out of place.) ElectricRay 09:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ray, I have reconsidered and researched, and some of the places I looked proved to be dead ends, while the rest led me in circles. Accordingly (and, I must admit, reluctantly) I am no longer persuaded that the reasonable man and the MOTCO differ in any material way. Ringbark 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be merged, having no particular life of its own outside the concept of a reasonable man. It may perhaps merit a mention in that article. 86.139.159.146 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the articles should be merged. While they have the same meaning in a court, this particular term has it's own historical usage and would, I believe, constitute a seperate article on the basis of it's historical significance. When merging the articles it would be difficult not to throw potentially useful information away to the extent that making this term a seperate section in the Reasonable Man article would actually warrant creating a seperate page. --Taskforce 15:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The historical usage of this term has been almost entirely in the context of what is or is not a reasonable man. Even in non-legal contexts, the expression is still an appeal to some sort of reasonableness or averageness. This is nothing more than a manifestation of the original legal use. I am prepared to stand corrected if someone provides a concrete example of a reference to a "man on the clapham omnibus" which has nothing to do with reasonableness or averageness, and which is notable. The best anyone has come up with is Kekulé's dream, and that doesn't really cut it for me. ElectricRay 13:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Kekulé in a fit of whimsy ages ago: he was, in fact, a man on a Clapham omnibus, although he was far from average, but he is probably not required in an encyclopedia article on the topic. Apologies for being so light-hearted.

More interesting, perhaps, would be to find out whether there are any citations of the "man on the Clapham omnibus" before 1903. Regarding Lord Bowen, it is worth recording that the case cited, McQuire v Western Morning News Co [1903] 2 KB 100, was a libel case, where the question was whether a bad theatre review was "fair comment" or not. Bowen was not a judge in this case - he had died in 1894 - but Sir Richard Henn Collins MR said "Fair ... certainly does not mean that which the ordinary reasonable man, "the man on the Clapham omnibus," as Lord Bowen phrased it, the juryman common or special, would think a correct appreciation of the work; and it is of the highest importance to the community that the critic should be saved from any such possibility." It seems that Collins is reporting an earlier comment from Bowen, but without citation, although a judgment of Bowen in Merivale v Carson (1887) 20 QBD 275 is also mentioned in Collins' judgment, but the report of that case does not refer to Clapham or omnibuses.

In a legal context, the "man on the Clapham omnibus" clearly does denote the mythical "reasonable man" (see McNair J in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, although saying that the test does not not apply precisely where the person has a special skill), but in other contexts it connotes more, to my mind, an average - but not necessarily reasonable, in a legal sense - man, an Everyman, like Mondeo Man or Joe Q. Public - see [1]. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently leaning towards keeping this a separate article due to the nature of this extra-ordinary phrase. Surely the contexts is the reasonable man, but for the explanation of the reasonable man, a short referral is sufficient. The story behind it, should be in this article here. I will do some research in the legal libraries to find the first and subsequent mentionings of the phrase in legal cases. Txwikinger 08:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you propose a merger, please initiate the discussion on the page that is linked by the tag - ie here in the case of the tag, not at Talk:The man on the Clapham omnibus. Secondly disagree strongly. The man on the Clapham omnibus may well be a reasonable man but there are further connotations associated with that term including the amount of knowledge he has, ie he is reasonably educated but not a specialist.--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the point is that "reasonable man" is a term of legal art, which describes a person who is reasonably eductated, and not a specialist. The expression "the man on the clapham omnibus" was used in the context of an English law tort judgment discussing the legal term of art "the reasonable man" and not just some general conception of a person who is reasonable. As I have said on a couple of occasions - and I welcome anyone who can provide some notable, sourceable evidence to the contrary, but so far no-one has - "the man on the clapham omnibus" has never achieved a life outside that particular legal context. The most that The man on the Clapham omnibus should be in this dictionary is a redirect back to the reasonable man, which is an article about the legal term of art which the bus-riding man was simply intended to instantiate. ElectricRay 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The man on the Clapham omnibus though is a term used beyond the law. It is not merely a term of legal art, it is a term used to descibe the common man with some particular overtones, it has equivalence also to "the man in the street" or Everyman as per the play. It is a well known idiom , not merely a legal term - see [2] and [3]. The article on a reasonable man focusses on the legal connotations, this article should focus on the idiom.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those citations is notable, nor remotely compelling. The second one, particularly, is utterly useless, and in any case all they're arguing for is a dictionary definition - not an encyclopaedia reference. ElectricRay 09:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that neither of these sources is compelling. The question is whether they are acceptable needs to be as per the criteria at Reliable sources, and if you wish to dismiss them, please do so in term so of the criteria there. Another source is a lecture from Gresham College which states "If you tell the man on the Clapham bus how the engine of the bus works, I doubt whether he will care. The people who care are the engineers who designed the engine, ..." an example of the phrase being used as an idiom rather than its legal context, lectures from tertiary institutions presumably meet the ctiteria. Idiom is more than mere dictionary definition.--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are scraaaaaping the bottom of the barrell here. I'm too old and too tired to argue. Have it your way. I assume you'll also be writing entries for scientific Grand Challenge, the travelling salesman problem, Ariane V space rocket flight 501, Checking a Large Routine ... do I need to go on? As for things mentioned in a university lecture being QED notable? Good grief. Put it this way: one person who wouldn't buy your argument is our old friend, the man on the Clapham omnibus. Good night. ElectricRay 00:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger tag removed following no further discussion--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]