[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Bankruptcy Law in the Republic of Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tag Bombing

[edit]

This article got quite heavily tag bombed by user talk:Jodon1971

I have moved comments on what Jodon1971 believes is missing from the article here.

Whatever about tags, I do not believe that prose criticism regarding alleged lack of content belongs on the top of articles.

Yes I am an Irish lawyer and wrote most of the article. That much is vislble on my talk page. I strove to make all of the material that I put into this article neutral and do not believe that there is any conflict of interest in my editing it.

If anyone can identify any WP:POV issues please either address them or let me know and I will try to fix them. I do not believe that the mere fact that I am a lawyer creates a WP:COI issue.

As regards third party sources, the article is, in my view, well referenced. It does have a significant number of references to relevant sections of the legislation (which is obviously a primary source), but these are balanced with references to legal texts and some media referenced. There is little alternative but to refer to the legislation, which is available on the web for free, if the article is to direct the reader to the relevant material. This has been done partly because law texts to which useful references would otherwise be made are expensive and bearing in mind that a significant number of people may face bankruptcy as lay litigants.

As for lists vs prose, I personally find it difficult to see, where for instance legislation contains a list of seven or eight things that this can helpfully be reduced to a paragraph of prose.

Yes, the page could be improved, but I do not believe that the addition of the history of bankruptcy in Ireland in the 19th and early 20th centuary would do anything other than confuse readers. If somebody wants to write a History of Bankruptcy in the Republic of Ireland, feel free. I could happily contribute a few thousand words on the Budd report alone, but that is unlikely to be of any assistance to anybody trying to understand bankruptcy today.

While the tags applied to the article challenge the page as being too technical, the tag which I have moved from the article to the talk page above also suggests that the reasoning as to why show cause applications were not removed from the Irish law while they were removed from the English law should be added. This appears to be technical legal history.

Moreover, the page was not written as a sociology article. Issues relating to such matters as insolvency and suicide are generic and I am not aware of any reliable sources that could be referenced in relation to any postulated relationship between suicide and bankruptcy in Irish Law.

On a technical point, the English Bankruptcy Act 1857 was not imported into Ireland, the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (as it then was, post the Act of Union) passed an Irish specific bankruptcy Act in 1857 (the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857 (20 & 21 Vict.) c. 60). This was amended a number of times. All statutes in force in 1922 were carried over into the law of the Republic of Ireland unless specifically varied. A good history of Irish bankruptcy law from 1857 to 1900 can be derived from The Law and Practice Relating to Bankruptcy in Ireland, Kisby, Hodges Figgis, 1900, and the history up to 1986 can be found in the Budd report (referenced in the article), if anybody is minded to write an article on the history of bankruptcy in Ireland.

If anyone feels that they can improve the article please do so. I have not and will not act in contravention of WP:OWN, sometimes perhaps to the extent of leaving in links to articles added by others that appear to be promotional.

FrankFlanagan (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your opening of the discussion. You made some additional points on my talk page which I will address here.
I have not simply "tagged this article and walked away". In fact I discussed this with User:JohnCD, a more experienced editor than myself, whom you can see had already replied on my talk page. I was hoping someone with experience in better wikipedia article writing other than me would address these issues but it seems this is not the case, therefore it falls back to me.
Bankruptcy (in any country) is a confusing subject, not just for lay people but even for lawyers. The Bankruptcy Law Committee Report, which you are fond of citing, has this to say about bankruptcy:
"Bankruptcy is a highly specialised subject of which few people (including lawyers) have more than a superficial knowledge." - Budd Report 1.13.1
Some background is not only useful, but necessary, because it is such a complex subject. Instead of "confusing readers", as you claim, it gives them a historical perspective. A historical perspective puts the subject in context, and putting a subject in context is what all good WP articles aim to do. I would suggest adding a section on its history in Ireland, rather than as a separate article. Otherwise it will still seem unbalanced. The bulk of the article deals with bankruptcy LAW, not "bankruptcy", therefore the article should be either renamed as "Bankruptcy Law in the Republic of Ireland", or should address the issues I have tagged it with. If you wish not to change the title then the article should cover a more broad palette than simply bankruptcy LAW. There is some addressing of this at the end of the article with the section "Recent reform and further proposals", this is the type of context that makes it understandable for all readers.
Regarding COI, you will acknowledge that the bulk of this article is written by yourself, correct? Therefore it is written from the POV of a lawyer rather than a layperson. Like any profession, lawyers are in business to make money. Bankruptcy, as well as being a process, is also a business, simply because it requires the expert counsel of lawyers. There has been considerable criticism of Irish Bankruptcy over the years, and because this criticism is absent in the article, it could be seen as promotional (not necessarily by me, but my anybody, for any lawyers who want more information on its legislation when conducting their business). It is natural for lawyers to focus on legislation, i.e. the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law, but with all due respect, the almost endless lists and sections dealing with the legislation is unencylopedic to the general title of the article, and I've already suggested a title change. Failing the title change, my request is simply to add a perspective that is not entirely one-sided, thereby avoiding the risk of it being seen as violating NPOV. Regardless of whether I perceive it as COI or not, you pretty much run the risk of it being seen that way ad infinitum, because you, as a lawyer, are the major contributor. However we will not get into a dispute about that and leave COI aside for the time being and address the content.
I stated it correctly when I said the English Bankruptcy Act 1857 was imported into Ireland. When Ireland was made an independent State in 1922, it "carried over" (your words), or "imported" (my words), the Bankruptcy Act under a previous dominion (pre-1922) which no longer existed (post-1922). When the Irish Constitution was being drafted from 1922-1937, they failed to make a new Irish Bankruptcy Act, and instead they took the lazy way out, and re-used one that existed from when Ireland was under British rule and basically imposed it using the Statute of Enactments Act 1922, which took on board all the Acts that were in existence in Ireland under the British Monarch. There was no amendment since 1922 until 1988 which meant that someone who was made bankrupt in 1987 was done so under an Act that was not only 130 years old, but also by one from a DIFFERENT country.
Your inference that suicides from Bankruptcy are irrelevant pushes your POV, and furthermore could be taken as an insult to readers who have knowledge of such issues, and in particular people who have personal involvement in it. Statistics on how seriously and severely bankruptcy affects people should be included. There was an article from the 80's (I would have to dig it up) saying that out of eleven people mentioned who were bankrupt, 2 had committed suicide. All the others had varying degrees of marital, personal, and financial problems as a result of bankruptcy.
Most people think of bankruptcy as a voluntary process. The 2 types of bankruptcy (voluntary and involuntary) that exist in Ireland are not distinct from this article.
Further distinctions, such as while the English bankruptcy process (from which the Irish one was derived) evolved in the Uk since 1922, and the Irish bankruptcy process did not, could be mentioned, and examples such as why removing "show cause" in UK legislation made the distinction that Irish Law in this matter did not evolve the same way (regardless of whether through laziness or not), should be mentioned.
Because there has been some criticism of Irish Bankruptcy over the years, any exclusion of this criticism from the article could be seen as pushing a POV.
-- Jodon | Talk 06:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok let's start with the important, in my opinion, stuff first.
First, I do not believe that the inference can be reasonablly drawn that I am of the view that emotional problems, including suicide, arising from insolvency are irrelevant and absolutly no insult was intended on by me regarding the emotional problems that individuals may suffer as a result of insolvency. What I said was that I was not aware of any reliable sources in this regard. I am not going to add uncited anecdote on an issue such as this. If you have a good reference that you can dig out please feel free to do so.
My comment that these issues are generic was intended to convey that they apply to insolvency generally and to banktuptcy generally. Only to the extent that there is citable material relating to a difference the Republic of Ireland, do they need to be in an Irish specific article.
I ask that you withdraw your inference regarding my view in relation to suicides. Drawing this inference appears to violate WP:NPA and WP:GF.
However, while any court proceedings are stressful, I am inclined to the view, I am allowed to have a view on a talk page, that such problems largely result from insolvency per se rather than from the bankruptcy process.
There are a large number of insolvent individuals in Ireland i.e. people unable to pay their debts. A very small proportion of these individuals have been made bankrupt and, despite the modifications to the process this is likely to remain a small proportion.
In the wake of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, bankruptcy is only one of the four insolvency processes that will shortly be available in Ireland. I believe that an article on insolvency in the Republic of Ireland is warranted, perhaps along with articles on DRNs, DSAs and PIAs. However, the position remains that bankruptcy is a legal process, insolvency is a broader concept.
Drawing the inference that simply because an article is largely written by a lawyer about a legal topic is is automatically POV and could be seen as promotional also appears to violate WP:NPA and WP:GF.
My comment regarding walking away was because you did not appear to follow the suggestions in First Steps in WP:COI regarding comments on the article's talk page. Apologies if you were not aware of this guideline.
Yes, you probably have provoked me into thinking about how some aspects of the article could be improved. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to address the rest of your comments, much less work on the article.
However, I will return to the rest of your comments when I get a moment.

FrankFlanagan (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My initial request to User:JohnCD was to have someone other than myself look into this article, i.e. someone who had experience writing good articles, or bringing them to a good standard, which I do not believe this article is for the reasons given in the tags. I have been observing this article for some time in the hopes that eventually you would deal with these things, knowing full well that any article is a work in progress. It was only when it looked like that wasn't going to happen that I decided to step in.
I do commend you on the effort you have put into it, and I'm not suggesting a censorship of any kind, but rather the reverse. You must assume good faith on my part that my only interest is improving the article and making it more balanced in that it doesn't give undue weight to the legislation. Perhaps you disagree with this assessment?
Bankruptcy in Ireland is a process (and a business) that can, and has, literally destroyed peoples lives. It is the process of entrapment (as executed by the Official Assignee), and the infringement of human rights (under the Irish Constitution), that is completely aside from simple "insolvency", i.e. inability to pay debts. That is not something that should be casually dismissed, regardless of whether you think the article should omit any "sociological" reference. This is why the title of the article (as it currently stands) is incorrect. One of the reasons the Bankruptcy process in Ireland was allowed to be so "abusive" is that it existed independently of the Irish Constitution (drafted post 1922) (which therefore had no power over it), designed to protect the citizen, because it used laws and Acts imported from British Rule (pre-1922).
The very mention of WP:NPA and WP:GF on your part means that you wish to steer this discussion into a dispute. I had no such intention. In fact your dismissive attitude of my suggestion to include mention of statistics of how bankruptcy affected people in Ireland, particularly causing suicides, certainly violates WP:GF and certainly gets very close to WP:NPA. Its entirely your decision whether this becomes personal or not.
Regarding COI, there is no inference of WP:NPA and my only concern is to keep the article in WP:NPOV. In any event I never stated categorically that COI was an actual violation, but merely that it could be seen that way, AND not just by me. It doesn't necessarily mean that I personally have seen it that way. This is primarily the reason I wanted an outside party, in particular an experienced editor or administrator, to look in on this. I don't think that is unreasonable.
From that standpoint, I can request a third opinion on this, without bothering JohnCD any further. Let me know if you are in agreement and I will do so.
-- Jodon | Talk 12:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate my request that you withdraw, what I view as a unjustified inference regarding my attitude to suicides resulting from insolvency. I find that comment both hurtful and insulting. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate to invoke WP:GF and WP:NPA in this regard.
Other than my request that you withdraw one comment I don't see what a third party is required for, unless you want validation of your COI tag addition. You already asked JohnCD to look at the article and I note your comment on his talk page yesterday. I see no need to involve anybody else.
The title of the article is aligned with a number of Bankruptcy in xx articles, which are all listed in project law. There is also a rather incomplete History of bankruptcy law article. So I believe it should stay were it is.
Believe it or not there is no subtext to my comments. As I have said before you have a good reference to a reliable source on matters such as suidides resulting from bankruptcy in Ireland please feel free to add them. I am not aware of any such sources, so I am not in a position to add them.
BTW the actual statistics for Irish bankruptcies are available | here].

FrankFlanagan (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found your dismissive attitude also "hurtful and insulting".
Its quite clear now that you have no intention of addressing the issues I raised in the article. Its also now clear that you wish to WP:OWN the article. And your refusal of a third opinion, despite JohnCD's suggestion of same below, means that any further involvement by me here is redundant.
Congratulations. You won. Enjoy your article. I'm finished here.
-- Jodon | Talk 07:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First I apologise for any hurt or insult that my comments caused. I intended no offence.
Secondly, I have repeatedly suggested that you add material to the article; the mere fact that I may believe that some material is appropriate is not determinative of anything.
Finally, yes, you have made me think about the article, which I have neglected for months and I agree that it can be improved. Whether we both share a common view as to what those improvements should be is a different matter.
FrankFlanagan (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. I withdraw and apologize for any comment I made which you found offensive. I also withdraw from this article. Please leave it at that. -- Jodon | Talk 20:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from main article

[edit]

Your edit summary in your inclusion of the redirect assumes that will address the issues raised in the tags. The tags are article specific, and country specific. Your redirect only circumvents the issues, it doesn't address them. If I was concerned about the main "Bankruptcy" article I would have added tags there as well. An article's standard shouldn't be dropped just because it is the result of a redirect from a main article. Despite redirects and links, every article is autonomous, and each has the same codes and standards for good article writing. -- Jodon | Talk 08:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary says that the edit was made in an attempt to address the context tag. When I looked at the article and assessed it critically in relation to that specific tag I came to the view that there was an issue in this regard.
This article, as written, is a country specific article. To quote from template:main
This template can also be used in articles leads when an article is not the "main" article for its subject. When there are multiple articles, distinct enough to warrant separate articles, but not enough to be very separate subjects. One to be the main article describing the topic, and the others avoiding unnecessary duplication of the main article.

FrankFlanagan (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested advice

[edit]

I am not the person you want to help here. Administrators in general have no special authority in content matters, and I in particular have no experience with technical articles of this kind. I can only give general advice about how, and how not, to pursue a disagreement. The first step I would normally recommend is WP:3O, but it does not seem to me that your disagreement is clear-cut enough to pose a question for that. Instead, I suggest posting messages on the talk pages of the two WikiProjects concerned, WP:WikiProject Law and WP:WikiProject Ireland, to see whether there are people there interested to join the discussion. A first priority for them should be to review the extensive tag list.

Please continue to observe WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF - comment on the article and how it might be improved, and not on each other's possible motives. Decide what you want, and might be able, to achieve: I don't imagine the article is going to be extensively rewritten in the near future, so I suggest Jodon propose a plan for how he thinks it should be developed, retitled or restructured, together with possible short-term changes or additions. I incline to agree that retitling it as "Law of... " would make the scope clearer, and any issues concerning suicide or emotional impact could be the subject of a separate article that Jodon could research and write, it sources can be found to keep it neutral and factual.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

I returned to this article since I saw the title was changed. "Law" is more relevant and in context. I propose a separate article (in progress) that will act as a broader outline to the subject. Bear in mind it is very much a work in progress, but the idea is to cover less technical aspects such as historical development and sociological impact (derived recently from Bankruptcy Tourism). When it is ready to be included as an article the multiple issues tags should be removed from this article. Thoughts are welcome. Jodon | Talk 18:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bankruptcy Law in the Republic of Ireland. 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) 06:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bankruptcy Law in the Republic of Ireland. 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) 16:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bankruptcy_Law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=1199481624"