Talk:It Is the Law
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the It Is the 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 |
 | It Is the Law is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 19, 2019. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 8, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that moviegoers in 1924 saw Justin Victor get away with murder because It Is the Law? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Main page appearance
editThis is to let people know that this article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 19, 2019, and specifically paging the FAC nominator(s), Squeamish Ossifrage. It would be good if someone checked that the article needs no amendments. The main page blurb text can be viewed and edited at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 19, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Convicted vs Tried
editAs I understand it, double jeopardy refers to being twice tried for the same crime, rather than twice convicted, as stated in the article. Refer to Wikipedia's own article regarding double jeopardy. Throgmo (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Good, but more to the point: it’s, IMNSHO, malpractice of encyclopediation to fail to mock, or else flesh out, the absurdity of confounding retrial for the same alleged crime with retrial for a similar act. Movies often strive for credibility by e.g. emulating the boilerplate where Anglo-American indictments say “did kill ...” (some John Doe or Max Factor) “, a human being...”. A non-slapstick Love and Death film ... especially one that fails to cast either Zeppo, one of his brothers, or Mel Brooks but posits such a supposed case of “... the law is an ass ...” is a reckless act unless its publicity (not mention our article) labels it a farce. I’m not reverting, biz it’s more important to shame the perpetrator than let it go unoted.
<!—
Lobby cards in the Infobox
editDon't know if it's my tablet, but the lobby cards in the Infobox are upside down.
Can this be fixed?
Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- A bot on Commons seems to have flipped it, but it was reverted an hour after. It's been 3 hours since that happened, and the image here is still apparently cached as the upside-down version. Not sure how to fix it. Vermont (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, but it is not the law, is it?
editThis article would be greatly improved by the addition of at least a brief discussion of the dubious legal theory on which the film's plot is based (and to which its title refers). The double jeopardy principle is surely not as gaping a loophole as the film pretends, is it? Can a person who has at one time been prosecuted for robbing a bank subsequently rob the bank with impunity? Does it have to be the same bank? I once got a ticket for speeding; why do I now sometimes observe speed limits like a chump?
Is it, in fact, the law?!
TypoBoy (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Almost exactly right. But I lost my edit, replete with Woody Allen|“really biting mockery and sarcasm” in a presumed edit conflict. ‘Nuff said. JerzyA (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)