Talk:Law of the Isle of Man

Isle of Man Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

'United Kingdom stub'?

'This article is a stub relating to law in the United Kingdom, or any of its constituent countries.' But the Isle of Man is legally a Crown Dependency, not part of the United Kingdom. Etaonsh 22:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The culprit has ignored this discussion, reverted, and apparently placed a 'clean-up/verify' tag on the remainder. I have therefore inserted a section clearly noting the island's 'Crown Dependency' status and reintroduced the 'disputed' tag. Etaonsh 08:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Etaonsh. Please check the edit history carefully, and you will see that different editors have been working on the article. This time a different editor made the change to the UK stub. You will surely agree it is an easy mistake to make for anyone trying to sort stubs. I completely agree with your point about the Isle of Man not being part of the UK, and I think the section you added about this is very useful. I added the unreferenced tag because the article does not (or did not when I put it there) cite any verifiable sources. I suggest that the stub is changed back to the non-UK stub (unless someone can show why it belongs in the UK category), and the Disputed tag is removed. Then I think the article should mention some more about why and how Manx law is different from UK law, citing some sources, and then the unreferenced tag can be removed. If enough gets written then the stub tag can be removed altogether and the same thing won't happen again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to the existence of the 'history' button, which was escaping my attention. Placing the Isle of Man within the United Kingdom may be an 'easy mistake to make' but is irritating from a Manx perspective. Re 'anyone trying to sort out stubs': I don't like the 'stub' label, personally - it seems to be saying nothing more than 'this is a small article and that in itself undermines its validity.' If someone has something factual to add, that's fine, but how does calling it a 'stub' help us? It just seems negative. Perhaps the person would like to call the Isle of Man itself a 'stub' while they're at it! And how does someone come to appoint themselves to 'sort out stubs'?

Similarly, the 'unreferenced tag': not every word in an encyclopedia is referenced, the 'unreferenced tag' as you call it ('cleanup/verify', to be precise) therefore also seems destructive, as well as hypocritical. If you feel able to dispute or support the article's statements, surely that would be more constructive than merely casting unfounded, official-looking aspersions on someone else's work? Etaonsh 14:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The stub tag is useful because it helps identify articles which could be easily expanded with minimal research. The unreferenced tag is not an aspersion either, and in this case is founded on the fact that the article did not mention any sources at all. One of Wikipedia's main policies is that information must be verifiable. And anyone can help sort stubs. For more information see WikiProject Stub sorting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'The stub tag is useful because it helps identify articles which could be easily expanded with minimal research.' 'Easily' by someone else, perhaps?; or by the tag-tagger at some hypothetical future date?

The verifiability ('Verifiability, not truth') policy seems to fly in the face of recent research in the Tibet article[[1]], which highlighted massive, general political bias in the depiction of Chinese return to capitalism as 'reform,' both in the original article itself and in what Wikipedia seems to deem 'verifiable sources.' Etaonsh 16:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing link

The 'Law and Practice of Capital Punishment in the Isle of Man, by Peter W. Edge, University of Central Lancashire' link appears not to be working. I have just reported it at the University website in question. --Etaonsh 05:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manx law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070623082011/http://ariadne.uio.no/colmed/z-psan95.htm to http://ariadne.uio.no/colmed/z-psan95.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manx law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]