Talk:Ugly law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Help with Citations[edit]

The following original discussion thread was posted by Susan Schweik on 10 December 2008:

I don't know who's responsible for putting up this text, but much of this language is taken directly from my work, without proper citation--and also with mis-citation (sources I site are wrongly credited with my words). See my essay "Begging the question," footnoted only once here at footnote 3, to see an accurate version of my words and their sources. This is a copyright violation. Susan Schweik

Susan, I apologize if you feel this is a copyright violation. while I created the original page and attempted to write the content in my own words, the content "belongs" to the global Wikipedia community. I would hope that you would see your work being cited in such a public venue as beneficial, not adversarial. However, you're more than welcome to correct the mis-citations. I attempted to locate additional resources concerning "Ugly Laws" and use the original sources you used to provide a more robust reference list. I strongly encourage you to create your own account and add your knowledge to the space! Adam Roades Talk 20:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
For me the question is not just copyright violation but academic courtesy -- giving credit where is is due within the scholarly world. It starts by putting quotation marks around quotes and naming the correct author. It takes skill to do it right, not just good intentions. 89.217.2.190 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinion[edit]

This page should explain what the law means by "ugly"; it seems to be opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.16.42 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Chronological Bias[edit]

It may be that these ordinances are misunderstood by those of us who were not alive at the time and in the place of their enactment. It is not out of the realm of possibility that they addressed a valid community concern. Might it have been, for instance, that these folk observed a strong positive correlation between the described set of bodily aspects/affects and the incidence of communicable diseases? In a time before antibiotics and preventative mass inoculation of the public, this could have been a serious concern. Whatever the case, let us not be too quick to sneer at our ancestors or their laws & customs. Is there any doubt that, 120 years hence, people will look aghast upon some of the benighted particulars in OUR ″enlightened″ laws & customs? Ultimately, I think I'm in concert our late 19th century antecedents! 24.8.178.172 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Historians learn to understand other societies from within. They treat their subjects with sympathy. They develop a certain sophistication. That's a far cry from tossing out a few pompous sentences of evo-psych. 89.217.2.190 (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)