User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected

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

Request Review of Administrator's Action[edit]

I'm posting to request a review of administrator Timotheus Canens' perma-blocking action of 03:34, 15 May 2012. I fault the block on the following bases:

1) No warning by the blocking admin (warnings are called for by WP:ADMIN). 2) No discussion (explanation where warranted is called for by WP:ADMIN).

The block was done via Twinkle button click, which inserted pre-set text and link to WP:SOCK, but no evidence or explanation was provided by the blocking administrator to support this.

Here ( is the talkpage of the editor at the time Timotheus perma-blocked him. Timotheus did not respond to attempt to justify his block until a full year later, placing the editor in a position of "what makes him say I'm a sockpuppet" and other editors in the position of "there must be secret evidence against him."

The editor (it was me by the way) in his first post had said he was an editor of several years that abandoned a single prior account and started a new for online privacy reasons. This is unequivocally authorized by WP:CLEANSTART. The editor did not respond as politely as he could have to the several people that quickly gathered at his page to opine on him, but he had never really experienced the administrative side of Wikipedia, and couldn't tell who was administrator and who was not.

I encourage everyone to comment here right away. Thanks for looking into this matter. I appeal to each of you not to accept allegations made against me without your allowing me to respond.

Colton Cosmic 18:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: Since there is no idea of who watches this page, I would like to ping small groups (say, 5 or 7) of editors to ask them to comment. This is totally in line with WP:CANVASS if you look at it. Okay?

Jimbo Wales generally does not consider posting on his talk page(s) to be canvassing. I suppose it could be overdone though. I've pinged him just to be sure that this talkpage policy carries over to this page. I'll assume that it does if we don't hear from him. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Smallbones, in line w. that and WP:CANVASS' nutshell "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Be open!" I'll now do so: @Tenebrae:, @Raabbustamante:, @Kind Tennis Fan:, @Olly150:, @Penbat:, @Tom Danson:, @Mr. Granger:. Dear people, I'm pinging to request you have a look at the discussion here at [1] in which a banned user (me) is asking for community comment on whether the administrator that perma-blocked him acted in line with policy. Colton Cosmic 00:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC). And some more: @Institutionalist:, @Magyar from Ural:, @The Vintage Feminist:, @永永世世:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Holanthony:, @Zefr:. Dear people, would you consider looking into my case. I was perma-blocked with a button click from Wikipedia four years ago, and am asking for comment on whether the administrator acted properly or not. Colton Cosmic 20:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC).
(talk page stalker) Beeblebrox confirmed that you are a sockpuppet, and that you are trolling. Furthermore, you have been blocked indefinitely. Indefinite blocks aren't carried out unless there is certainty surrounding the reasons for the block. You are also evading your block with the use of an IP, as you have just demonstrated above. Therefore, I believe the block should stay in place. Kindest regards, --Ches (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no evidence for these charges. I am a good editor, having originally authored several articles. I agree only that I am evading the block through clearly-disclosed IP editing because all other channels of communication have been cut off to me. But this thread is about whether Timotheus Canens' blocking of me conformed to policy or had any evidence. Let's stick to that rather than "Beeblebrox says so." Colton Cosmic 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of what newcomers to this question would want to know in order to informedly opine. When I appealed to Arbcom the second time, it was arbitrator Worm_that_Turned that told me I was blocked because I "annoyed the wrong person." He was justifying it on that basis. I had never encountered or heard of Timotheus Canen before he perma-blocked me, not explaining a word. But to Worm, it was a question of status and power: essentially "an administrator on Wikipedia doesn't need a policy or rules-based reason to block a user." There is really no assertion among those that read up on my case that I ever actually sockpuppeted (I didn't). They argue for my banning based on contrived reasons ("he evaded his ban so now must be banned some more, "we must officiously continue banning him because of his 'appeal timer' which resets each time he block evades to seek to be unblocked." Ah well, if anyone is out there, I would be grateful for your help. Colton Cosmic 20:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, darn it. I can't ping-notify people while editing via raw IP. One has to be signed in (and sign) an edit for the ping function to work. Would someone do it for me? It's easy enough to copy those usernames, brackets, etc. from my edits? Thanks. Colton Cosmic 14:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Our website and media outlet, Smashing Interviews Magazine, was sabotaged in 2010 by hackers or competition wanting to ruin the publication when we were just starting out. We were told they put two links on pages where we had done interviews with people. We were told it was spamming. So in 2010, we were also told we could not have a Wiki page for our magazine or for the publishers (Marc Parker and myself) forever. In other words, we were given a lifetime ban for what some hackers did to us back in 2010. Nothing else has ever happened. The hackers have not tried to sabotage the publication again, and of course we have not. Why would we ever do that? There is no reason why we ever would. We've tried over the years to get this lifetime ban lifted to no avail. We are trying again now 10 years later after the offense, and we are being told "No" again and that the case is closed. We are also being told that we are an unreliable source. We are not. We are the only online publication that strictly features original 1:1 interviews from all genre. Our interviews are mentioned and cited by major media outlets all over the world, television, radio, in textbooks, magazines and even used in college curriculum studies. When we presented our case again, we were confronted by doublespeak and accused of "self-promotion" simply because we we provided evidence for our case. All we want is to be treated fairly along with everyone else, but now it appears to us that this is some sort of personal vendetta that perhaps someone is biased against us instead of judging the evidence as presented to them in a fair manner. Smashing Interviews Magazine has a Bing Knowledge Panel, the other publisher (Marc Parker) has a Google Panel and a Bing Panel, and I have a Google Panel. There is no reason why our magazine should not have a Wikipedia page, and there is no reason why the publishers of the magazine (who are also authors) should not have Wikipedia pages also. Please review this case. We appreciate your time. Melissa Parker, Publisher, Smashing Interviews Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


moved to TeeVeeed (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Should Bright Line Rule apply to Stanton Foundation?[edit]

Note: This has been copied from Talk:Jimbo_Wales, on guidance from a hostile antagonist editor.

Jimbo, your Bright Line Rule clearly says that those with a financial conflict of interest on a topic should not directly edit the Wikipedia article about their organization. It would seem that Liz Allison of the Stanton Foundation believes that her organization may be an exception, commenting:

I propose to edit "our" page to correct several factual errors and to expand upon the description of our activities. I understand that it would be better if this were done by an unconnected person, but we share the problem of many smaller organizations, that not many people follow our article and so the quality improvement mechanism doesn't work as well as it does with major entries.

According to a recent Form 990 report, Allison is paid $115 an hour ($180,000 annually) for her role directing the Stanton Foundation, so she has a financial conflict of interest.

She has directly edited the article to remove numerous reference sources, including an interesting mention that Stanton served President Eisenhower "on a committee that would plan the country's response to a nuclear attack", and a mention that the roots of the present Stanton Foundation were laid out on September 1, 1991, when the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund was established, and whose assets were later transferred over to the newly-named Stanton Foundation. She has changed the article to describe the "previously unfunded Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund". Federally-filed documents showed that the Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund had assets of $28.89 million in 2007. Most neutral readers would not characterize that as "unfunded", would they?

Additionally, while Allison has retained mention of the controversial Stanton Foundation donation to the Wikipedian-in-Residence at (her husband's) Belfer Center, where it used to be described on the first "screen" of content in the Wikipedia article, it now requires the reader to scroll down to a third "screen" of text to find it.

I believe you have said in the past that if a violation of the Bright Line Rule is found, if the matter is brought to you thoughtfully and without a "gotcha" tone, you would consider responding appropriately to the editor engaging in the practice. That is why this message has been carried to you here today. - 2001:558:1400:10:1524:BCDC:B355:7DDD (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Kind of shameful that Jimmy would be ignoring this. One would hope that it's just the matter of his not having seen it, because it's been shunted off to this "Unprotected" holding pen. - 2001:558:1400:10:34EE:5695:F426:2455 (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
When you post a claim that you say is supported by a 129-page PDF, please indicate which page has the information supporting the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: It's on page 6, which is Part VIII, Line 1. (See: ELISABETH K. ALLISON, compensation 180,000 for 30 hours per week). - 2601:42:C104:28D0:1492:6625:9B63:169F (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

WMF banned user editing on Wikia[edit]

Jimbo, it looks like User:WayneRay, a user with a conviction for child pornography, is busy editing on Wikia. He seems to be the only user of the London, Ontario wiki, which has had such interesting pages as "Erotic Photos". I know that Wikipedia and Wikia are totally seperate things, but you prolly know who to talk to over there to get things taken care of quickly. It took weeks to get him globally banned here even after an article in the Signpost. I hope Wikia can move more quickly than that. Thanks! Anil Fischer (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This page is bullshit[edit]

It's a pointless page, because Jimbo Wales doesn't look at it, and therefore doesn't respond to anything on it. He has never contributed here. The page should be MFD'd as a trolling project by User:Smallbones, its creator. - 2001:558:1400:10:3D05:9286:6266:5A35 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you know Jimbo doesn't look at this page? Just because he hasn't posted on it doesn't mean to say that he doesn't view it. It is not a trolling project, it has been created by @Smallbones: so new editors, anonymous editors (like you) etc, have a means of contacting him when us admins have to protect his user talk page. For this reason, I will not be deleting it.--5 albert square (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@2001:558:1400:10:3D05:9286:6266:5A35 and 5 albert square: 2001:558:1400:10:3D05:9286:6266:5A35, this isn't Bullshit, 5 albert square, yes I would agree that Jimbo may view it time to time. he may respond, we may never know. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Strongest/weakest subjects - Library based classification system[edit]

I tried posting the following but am having local firewall problems. Can someone add it to the discussion please.

Smallbones pinged me about this discussion. I suggested something related a while back. My thinking was that it would be useful to direct users to appropriate classification numbers. I mocked up a page here (with the actual template here). I haven't done anything about it for a while though. I'm currently on holiday and have limited access, so will review this topic and add more at the weekend. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please delete the harassment sites[edit]

A german rascist wrote 3 harassment sites. You must delete them. Its full of hate and lies.

Do you support child abuse? Do you support harassments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinfo (talkcontribs) 15:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Global banned User:Styron111 again with false accusation of child abuse. User:Styron111 sets user in danger, because Stuart Styron is deleted and salted.Schmitty (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, dear Jimbo. Lamentably, that web log is still active as a hate page after more than three years. Best regards from Agathenon (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC) in Germany.

Jimbo @WMFOffice: There are _some_ pages full of hate speech agains Wikipedi-ans, related to Stuart Styron and Kurt Staudt. Please take legal action against Mäckler, Kühntopf, Goszizs and other hate bloggers. Good Morning --RENTER ANTON (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The hate blog "wikimedia-foundation-support-schmitty" (founded by Stuart Styron) is now operated by his supporter Kurt Staudt, full of insults and conspiracy theories copied from Styron's Twitter accounts. If you wish I can provide both addresses by Wikimail, but not in public. Best regards from Agathenon (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Agathenon is Kirchmeier/Bartoschek - criminal wikipedians murder! these people are sick - interpoliswatching## — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiemerlingGefängniskirchmeiermörder (talkcontribs) 06:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

For the acts @ Jimbo: Murder threat by "Riem..." reported to WMF. Agathenon (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Addition: threatener "Riem..." was identified als globally locked Stuart Styron (see above), a well-known supporter of Opus Sanctorum Angelorum sect. Best regards from Agathenon (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Stuart Styron´s accomplice Kurt Staudt also collaborates with User:Robert Dabringhaus locked globally by User:WMFOffice. Proof: 1 and 2. There is an organized gang operating against Wikipedia. -- (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Next penal trial against Stuart Styron at de:Amtsgericht Arnsberg 16 November 2020, linked by him to Wikipedia again. @WMFOffice: for your knowledge. Best regards, Agathenon (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The residual gang fighting against Wikipedia (including but not limited to Stuart Styron aka user:Styron111) is still active on WP itself: look there November 3, 2020). Engelwerk ist the same as Opus Sanctorum Angelorum. Lamentably I don't know yet who are Leif Czerny and Bicycle Tourer (both caught by abuse filters on the same discussion page). Maybe we will know more after Styron′s trial, but I can′t promise anything until then. Sorry. Best regards, Agathenon (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC) from Oberhaching, Germany.
Arnsberg Office Court 2020-11-16: Stuart Styron was validly sentenced to a fine equal to 30 days in prison. Judgment´s number is 5-Cs-110-Js-1007/19-336/19. His harrassment sites are still on line. Lots of love to Jimbo. --Nicu Vinea (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy new year, dear Jimbo and Nico. Help is on its way: A Twitter profile serving as a link hub for the (now 4) harrassment sites by Stuart Styron and/or Kurt Staudt was put on the global link blacklist on January 8, 2021. Its spammer was globally locked, so the problem has been partially solved. The Blogspot hate page abusing Wikimedia Foundation′s name in its URL -look above- wasn′t taken down yet. I will keep watching out and informing you here if there′s any news. Best regards from Agathenon (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC), Oberhaching in Germany.

Stuart Styron was globally banned again. His new victim is the German Christian-Democrat politician Heinrich Frieling (CDU), who had visited a Jewish cemetery in order to promote peaceful reconciliation between Jews and Protestants after the Holocaust. Best regards, Agathenon (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2017[edit] (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

moved from "Socking" on regular talk page[edit]

  • Jimbo, I made a reply here, but it was reverted as vandalism or trolling. You might want to consider contributing to the discussion about whether that reversion was appropriate. (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


Hello. Can you look at the story on the page? One user removes a template for a microphone, and we have the practice of short articles to mark with such a template and then delete them in two weeks (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the user removes my edits when I tell administrators about it. (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Question for Jimbo[edit]

This is a question for Jimbo and Jimbo only. Have you ever been to Latvia? --KirkVHouten (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[edit]

I am surprised that all this section was suddenly eradicated [2]:

Warning and hope for better understanding.[edit]

Dear Jimmy Donal Wales, I frankly hope that Republic of Macedonia will not have to apply similar measures as Turkish government did. There is unacceptable offensive page on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia: "Janevistan" [3] with a Nazi content there. I hope that you will realize that this page have to be deleted. Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.00:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

@ There does not seem to be a discussion at that article's talk page, which would usually be where this discussion should take place. Note that I am not replying for Jimmy Wales, I am only making an additional suggestion. Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 00:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Judging from google translate I would suggest that the page should be deleted. While Google translate is very far from perfect (bordering on gibberish sometimes) it appears to be joke page which is also a personal attack on a controversial figure. I do not see any reason why any government would find it problematic, but it is not consistent with the high regard for human dignity, even of controversial figures, that I expect of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Igor Janev has been discussed many times on your talk page before: 2014-05-22 complaining about "salting" of the page, 2013-08-25, in which the deletion of de:Igor Janev was mentioned. 2014-04-06 2014-12-27 The topic came up incidentally at 2014-11-06, where the "Igor Janev spammer" was said to be User:Operahome, and at 2014-11-24, where it fueled a wall of text about Macedonia. The .sh page was specifically the topic of a sustained campaign lately: 2016-11-13 2016-12-13 2017-02-23
While there is something pathological going on here, note that the page cited is (as I said in one of those recent discussions) just a user subpage marked as humor. I doubt that there is as much trouble to be had in letting some random user host a page making mild fun of someone than there is in dignifying a long-term troll with any high-level response. Wnt (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree. The best thing to do is not host humor that makes fun of someone - even if they are regarded as a "long-term troll". Let Mr. Janev walk away with dignity and take the high ground.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Igor Janev was the guy who had drafted Macedonian Constitution in 1991, like Founding Fathers in US George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison or Benjamin Franklin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia is generally credited to the coalition government of Kiro Gligorov, leader of the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia. It is one of those long new-style constitutions with more than a hundred separately written articles, perhaps not the best format (their article on freedom of expression is pretty decent, but who knows what part of some other paragraph might supersede it?). I therefore doubt it was all written by Janev. Nonetheless, Janev is a real person:[4]

According to Dr. Igor Janev, a former special advisor of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Macedonia, from the legal point of view, UN Security Council (SC) resolution 817 (1993) and General Assembly (GA) resolution 47/225 (1993) impose additional requirements to Macedonia’s admission to the United Nations. He claims that these conditions, which include “the applicant’s acceptance of a provisional name and an obligation to negotiate with another country (Greece) over its final name,” are in collision with the provisions of Article 4(1) of the UN Charter.

Some of the battle on the ground is apparent from forums like this: [5] The document by Janev is cited here as Janev I., „Legal aspects of the use of a provisional name for Macedonia in the United Nations system“, AJIL, vol. 93, 1999; pp. 157. There are some copies like this and JSTOR providing a teaser page -- the JSTOR text is readily available via Sci-Hub if you paste in the link. I am convinced, therefore, that a) Igor Janev is a real person; b) he is primarily known for making a strong argument against the legitimacy of the UN's demand that Macedonia be prohibited from joining under that name; and c) there are a lot of people who want to make trouble for him and others based on some kind of hyped-up name controversy that seems inconceivable to Americans who, for example, would not expect Mexico to demand that California be renamed "Alta California" to avoid confusion. Wnt (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem of the editor[edit]

Dear Jimbo (If I may)

I have made a large part of analogy, using the following sources - reformulating them slightly in order this was not a exact copy which would be illegal - and placed footnotes to them which have been eventually deleted, while the content made upon them left.

Because I made every edit (serious of edits) from a new account (I did not know that it was necessary to have only one account, that it is so important it is nowhere stated at the page on which one logs in or creates accounts, as well as I was not informed about that during editing and abandonnig previous accounts and forgetting passwords - not seeing aby need to remeber or write them at all, and concetrating only on the quality of content I was contributing to the wiki: thinking that this is the main purpose od it), these accounts have been all blocked after some time because of this reason. I do not left any abusive content anyhow. And I have not edited any artice since then, leaving only instruction how one arcicle can be improved. Some supsicious (national) motives, very irritating, also came out to light. But, leaving them aside, I would like to request you to determine or ask someone at Wiki to determine whether the removal of footnotes to the following articles is violation of copyright or not. In my opinion it is and it is to the evident detriment to the person I do not intend to do any harm. Such a removal of footnotes to sources that were in fact used is also very unethical at least to me. And it should never happen in my opinion, so I am surprised taht someone did that. If you or someone you have know have access to these articeles, please objectively compare the pertient current content of Wiki and of that not undisclosed articles. I will be much obliged. I am not repsonsible for this infringment since I have cited sources and do not wish to be involved in it or associated with it anyhow.

In science

  • Analogies are above all used as a means of conceiving new ideas and hypotheses, which is called a heuristic function of analogical reasoning.
  • Analogical arguments can play also probabative function, serving then as a means of proving the rightness of particular theses and theories. This application of analogical reasoning in science is, however, debatable. Probative value of analogy is of importance especially to those kinds of science in which logical or empirical proof is not possible such as theology, philosophy or cosmology in part where it relates to those areas of the cosmos (the universe) that are beyond any empirical observation and knowledge about them stems from the human insight and unsensory cognition.
  • Analogy may be used in order to illustrate and teach (in order to enlighten pupils on the relations that happens between or inside certain things or phenomena, a teacher may refer to other things or phenomena that pupils are more familiar with).
  • Analogy may help in creating or elucidating one theory (theoretical model) via the workings of another theory (theoretical model). Thus it can be used in theoretical and applied sciences in the form of models or simulations which can be considered as strong analogies. Other much weaker analogies assist in understanding and describing functional behaviours of similar systems.

Koszowski, M. (2017). Multiple Functions of Analogical Reasoning in Science and Everyday Life. Polish Sociological Review no. 1/2017, pp. 3–19.

Analogies in statutory law

In statutory law analogy is used in order to fill the so-called lacunas or gaps or loopholes.

First, a gap arises when a specific case or legal issue is not explicitly dealt with in written law. Then, one may try to identify a statutory provision which covers the cases that are similar to the case at hand and apply to this case this provision by analogy. Such a gap, in civil law countries, is referred to as a gap extra legem (outside of the law), while analogy which liquidates it is termed analogy extra legem (outside of the law). The very case at hand is named: an unprovided case.

Second, a gap comes into being when there is a statutory provision which applies to the case at hand but this provision leads in this case to an unwanted outcome. Then, upon analogy to another statutory provision that covers cases similar to the case at hand, this case is resolved upon this provision instead of the provision that applies to it directly. This gap is called a gap contra legem (against the law), while analogy which fills this gap is referred to as analogy contra legem (against the law).

Third, a gap occurs when there is a statutory provision which regulates the case at hand, but this provision is vague or equivocal. In such circumstances, to decide the case at hand, one may try to ascertain the meaning of this provision by recourse to statutory provisions which address cases that are similar to the case at hand or other cases that are regulated by vague/equivocal provision. A gap of this type is named gap intra legem (within the law) and analogy which deals with it is referred to as analogy intra legem (within the law).

The similarity upon which statutory analogy depends on may stem from the resemblance of raw facts of the cases being compared, the purpose (the so-called ratio legis which is generally the will of the legislature) of a statutory provision which is applied by analogy or some other sources.

Statutory analogy may be also based upon more than one statutory provision or even a spirit of law. In the latter case, it is called analogy iuris (from the law in general) as opposed to analogy legis (from a specific legal provision or provisions).

Koszowski, M. (2017). The Scope of Application of Analogical Reasoning in Statutory Law. American International Journal of Contemporary Research no 1/2017 (v. 7), pp. 16-34.

Analogies in precedential law (case law)

First, in precedential law (case law), analogies can be drawn from precedent cases (cases decided in past). The judge who decides the case at hand may find that the facts of this case are similar to the facts of one of precedential cases to an extent that the outcomes of these cases are justified to be the same or similar. Such use of analogy in precedential law pertains mainly to the so-called: cases of first impression, i.e. the cases which as yet have not been regulated by any binding judicial precedent (are not covered by a ratio decidendi of such a precedent).

Second, in precedential law, reasoning from (dis)analogy is amply employed, while a judge is distinguishing a precedent. That is, upon the discerned differences between the case at hand and the precedential case, a judge reject to decide the case upon the precedent whose ratio decidendi (precedential rule) embraces the case at hand.

Third, there is also much room for some other usages of analogy in the province of precedential law. One of them is resort to analogical reasoning, while resolving the conflict between two or more precedents which all apply to the case at hand despite dictating different legal outcome for that case. Analogy can also take part in ascertaining the contents of ratio decidendi, deciding upon obsolete precedents or quoting precedents form other jurisdictions. It is too visible in legal Education, notably in the US (the so-called 'case method').

Koszowski, M. (2016). The Scope of Application of Analogical Reasoning in Precedential Law. Liverpool Law Review no. 1/2016 (v. 37), pp. 9-32.

Restrictions on the use of analogy in law

In legal matters, sometimes the use of analogy is forbidden (by the very law or common agreement between judges and scholars). The most common instances concern criminal, administrative and tax law.

Analogy should not be resorted to in criminal matters whenever its outcome would be unfavorable to the accused or suspect. Such a ban finds its footing in the very principle: “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege”, a principle which is understood in the way that there is no crime (punishment) unless it is expressly provided for in a statutory provision or an already existing judicial precedent.

Analogy should be applied with caution in the domain of tax law. Here, the principle: “nullum tributum sine lege” justifies a general ban on the employment of analogy that would lead to an increase in taxation or whose results would – for some other reason(s) – be to the detriment to the interests of taxpayers.

Extending by analogy those provisions of administrative law that restrict human rights and the rights of the citizens (particularly the category of the so-called “individual rights” or “basic rights”) is as a rule prohibited. Analogy generally should also not be resorted to in order to make the citizen's burdens and obligations larger or more vexatious.

The other limitations on the use of analogy in law, among many others, pertain to:

  • the analogical extension of statutory provisions that invlove exceptions to more general statutory regulation or provisions (this restriction flows from the well-known, especially in civil law continental legal systems, Latin maxims: “exceptiones non sunt excendentae”, “exception est strictissimae interpretationis” and “singularia non sunt extendenda”)
  • the making of the use of an analogical argument with regard to those statutory provisions which comprise enumerations (lists)
  • extending by analogy those statutory provisions that give impression that the Legislator intended to regulate some issues in an exclusive (exhaustive) manner (such a manner is especially implied when the wording of a given statutory provision involves such pointers as: “only”, “exclusively”, “solely”, “always”, “never”) or which have a plain precise meaning.

In civil (private) law, the use of analogy is as a rule permitted or even ordered by law. But also in this branch of law there are some restrictions confining the possible scope of the use of an analogical argument. Such is, for instance, the prohibition to use analogy in relation to provisions regarding time limits or a general ban on the recourse to analogical arguments which lead to extension of those statutory provisions which envisage some obligations or burdens or which order (mandate) something. The other examples concern the usage of analogy in the field of property law, especially when one is going to create some new property rights by it or to extend these statutory provisions whose terms are unambiguous (unequivocal) and plain (clear), e.g.: be of or under cartian age.

Koszowski, M. (2016). Restrictions on the Use of Analogy in Law. Liverpool Law Review no. 3/2016 (v. 37), pp. 137-151.

Everyday life

  • Analogy can be used in order to find solutions for the problematic situations (problems) that occur in everyday life. If something works with one thing, it may also work with another thing which is similar to the former.
  • Analogy facilitates choices and predictions as well as opinions/assessments people are forced to do daily.

Koszowski, M. (2017). Multiple Functions of Analogical Reasoning in Science and Everyday Life. Polish Sociological Review no. 1/2017, pp. 3–19.

I have taken some pains to make this content, mastering it as far as I could, wanting them to look spendid and be objective and accurate and not misleding in any inch. But if this content must be deleted, I can do nothing. If the sources have to be hidden, it should be totatly refomulated in order not to infringe these copyrights in my opinion. Otherwise terminology, an order and manner of presentation, concepts and even some words and expressions or even titles are just too similar. I am not going to say that the aformetioned articles are the only sources on that subject but in fact I do not know any others in English. On analogy in science is Adam Biela, but it is not so concise for sure. So apart from this entry I even cannot help in such reformualtation by mentioning them.

Sorry that I am bothering you but rather no adminsitartor is willing to help in fixing this. I have asked some. If you think that no-one can help me in Wiki with this, please leave me scuh a message and I will stop asking for it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheenaa (talkcontribs) 16:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan[edit]

Hi Jimbo! You might be interested in this book by Jeremiah Rush Bowen: "Reaganism in Literary Theory: Negative Moralism and Hermeneutic Suspicion." It is quoted on wikipedia in this edit [6] on the talk page for the article about Ronald Reagan to argue that Reagan was a racist. This excerpt from the book is from Amazon's website:

"Reaganism is a discourse of devotion and disqualification, combining a neoliberal negative theology of the market with a neoconservative demonization of opponents. By representing the market as a moralistic standard of perfection, a representation of goodness and freedom, Reagan's personality cult organizes a social fantasy that shelters from inquiry the aggressivity of the market as a war of..."

Is the book a hoax? It's impossible to tell. (Also, check out the author's other book titles.) On wikipedia, this is considered "scholarly." (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC) (pumpkinhead)

Also note that the edit linked to above was made by a senior editor with over four years experience and 30,000 edits. (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Had enough[edit]

Can your editors/administrators please stop reverting my edits over and over? (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)