Talk:Acceleration (law)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acceleration (law) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Remove Template as to citations
editThe template is removed because the citations given are of high quality, and are indisputable. Adding additional citations will only result in a needless and inappropriate number of citations, which are mere duplicates. USN007 (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I would agree for the reasons given by USN007. The citations tag is inappropriate in the context in which it was used. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Striking sock agreeing with themself. DMacks (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Restoring template as the user who removed it has been banned for socking and pressing a viewpoint in contravention of WP:NPOV. 2001:8003:591D:2400:E199:C5C6:66BF:6035 (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Worldwide view
editI don't think the worldwide view policy can really apply to this sort of article- as from what I've been able to find, the law field dosen't seem to make mention of the term "acceleration" anywhere outside the U.S. - and therefore, much like the coverage of a U.S. supreme court decision, is intrinsically bent on the use as accepted in the Untied States. I would therefore find the use of the template to be inappropriate in this setting. I'll give a chance for others to state their opinions on this, before I go ahead and remove. USN007 (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- The concept of "constructive acceleration" seems to have a US legal connection, but is also discussed in connection with other nations (possibly as a spread of the US model, or looking for support of the concept from common-law or other existing legal frameworks). I don't know much about contract law, so I don't know the specific meaning in the US. And all I know for other places is what I can google. Maybe not so much "globalize" for the existing two meanings, as "there is another meaning missing, and that one is not as strictly US". DMacks (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)