 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Since there are no examples the cleave between negligence and gross negligence, I think this article FAILS to provide anything other than some references to external materials, i.e. it is very poorly written. 2620:0:1000:3201:B5C4:ACB9:64B3:40AB (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Changing the introduction
editA user added the following to the introduction, however I'm not sure of the legal basis for this definition so it was removed: Gross negligence is legally culpable carelessness, showing a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm. The difference between "negligence" and "gross negligence" may be somewhat subjective. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Please Move
editMaybe this should be moved to "Gross negligence(UK law)" or something. Or expanded.76.105.216.34 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Additionally, the link to US corporate law does not have any specific section dealing with negligence. There are three instances of the word negligence on that page. One links to the page on negligence in general, and the other links directly back here. Seems a bit pointless. 27chaosmosis (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Politicization
editIf you look at the edit history of this page, it has clearly received a lot of attention in recent days due to the Clinton email scandal. I propose that it be reverted to one of its earlier states and that a temporary moratorium on editing it be put in place. The risk of partisans of whatever stripe trying to change the language in a way favorable to them seems very high. I think they would likely get away with it as things stand, because this page is receiving little attention. Someone already appears to have undone Toomanyaccountsargh deletion of a phrase. I've now redeleted it. Regardless of whether or not this is justified, I think all this shows this is a potential edit war zone. Avoiding that seems like a good idea. The best way to avoid the influence of bias due to recent controversies would be to revert to an earlier version of the page. Or, alternatively, appeal to some other hopefully neutral way to resolve disagreements about this? For example, is there possibly any one particular legal dictionary that is viewed as the gold standard, above any other?
I am still very new to Wikipedia and do not feel comfortable doing much on my own. I also do not know how something would be locked from editing, or if that is even possible. But hopefully someone reasonable and more comfortable than me here sees this proposal, agrees with it, and implements it. I don't know what I'm doing, but I want to help. Hopefully this gets worked out. Thanks 27chaosmosis (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)