Talk:Judgement

Copyright violation

Copyright violation. See http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=judgement

Resolved

 – Duplicated language replaced with an original substitute some time ago. - CheshireKatz (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed Page Move

I'm concerned that this article appears to have been moved here from Judgment without discussion. Furthermore, an orphaned talk page appears to have been left at Talk:Judgment and the disambiguation page for Judgment and the pages that disambiguation page links to all contain a spelling inconsistent with the spelling of this page. For the sake of uniformity it would seem wise to change all or change none, if the difference is merely regional, applying to each instance equally. - CheshireKatz (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be reverted, since it's a violation of WP:ENGVAR. I'm not sure how to do it. Can an admin please step in and fix this? Samuel Webster (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it back to Judgment. It was never an official page move; it was done by cut and paste, which is the wrong way to move pages even when the move does have consensus. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if it comes to that, "Judgement" is the better spelling. -- Evertype·✆ 08:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Better?" Samuel Webster (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just come over now

includes a summary of the most important guidelines 98.20.41.152 (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The UK's Guardian, Telegraph and Times newspapers' spelling guides all recommend 'judgment' over 'judgement', as does Collins' dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.237.177 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the Oxford dictionary seems to put it down as judgement, but on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales' Communications Office seems to put it down as judgment stating:

One further point - you may think we can't spell, but when we refer to a court judgment we have deliberately missed an “e” out. It is not entirely clear why, it's just the way it is spelt!

I always thought it was spelt judgement in British English (I'm in Australia) so there you go. Rentrustic (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that it's 'judgement' generally in BE, save where it's the judgment of court etc, when it's judgment...no idea why but then since when did English spellings make sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.28.67 (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In American English it is often spelt without an e. However, using phonetic rules this should then be pronounced with a hard "g" sound. "g" needs to be followed by particular vowels to have a soft "j" sound, "e" being one of them. So, although judgment has become the common spelling, it really should be judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.8.10 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling variations

Someone removed the mentioning of alternative spelling, which I've reinstated. This word is incidentally discussed in Wikipedia's Manual of style.

This page should be titled "Judgment" without the "e" - considering that in American English the other way is incorrect.

According to https://www.dictionary.com/e/judgement-vs-judgment/ "judgment" has been the spelling on both sides of the pond from the late 1600s all the way to when Webster put it in his dictionary in 1828. 'Judgment' with the added 'e' is modern spelling used in certain regions, but it is in no way standard English. 165.255.241.15 (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Judgement of history

Perhaps there should be an entry about the philosophical concept of judgement of history, which often appears in modern political rhetoric. It seems to have replaced the more ancient notion of divine judgement, and therefore could give the impression that contemporary secular people are trying to play God through the paradigm of history. There does appear to be a certain ovidian paganization of history in this type of rhetoric. ADM (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Except that there are more than five times as many web references to "judgment of history" than "judgement of history." Just telling the truth. More than four times as many web references to "divine judgment" than "divine judgement." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.127.171 (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Distinction

'Judgment' as in condemnation or a determination by any authority is spelled without the 'e'. 'Judgement' as in any other opinion, estimate or discernment is spelled with an 'e'. This according to at least the 1965 edition of Fowler's Modern Use of the English Language. This useful distinction will be lost if we spell this word in either sense indiscriminately.

Fynepointe (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

References missing

It appears there could be a link to another wikipedia page under uses of the word. i.e. adjudicational capabilitiesMiss.marinagriffin (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Additions to "See Also"

Some other pages that could be listed under "See Also" could be the wikipedia pages on reason and logicMiss.marinagriffin (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Updates

If no one objects, I am going to clean up and fill out this article a little more over the next couple weeks, especially with some more sourcing and for usages other than Aristotelian logic. Feel free to undo any changes I make that don't seem an improvement. HelmholtzButLater (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)