Talk:Scienter

I just wanted to repeat a sub-comment I made on this article's Deletion review: this article can be expanded to include it's interpretation by the courts ([http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Sep/1/127316.html For example]). I put it to some enterprising editor to put together an interesting article on the world of scienter. --Bobak 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

:This definitely shouldn't be deleted. I searched for it here after finding the term used in an article describing the intricacies of case law surrounding Ohio's position on child porn (came across it after I got a notification that there was a sex offender in our area, who had been convicted of "Lewd/Indecent Acts to Child (Oklahoma)"; such vague wording as that confused me, so I decided to look it up to see what it meant under Oklahoma law), in that it said there had to be obvious lewd focus on the genitals and scienter. I had never seen the term before, but it's obviously an important legal concept. Perhaps the Ohio child porn thing could be one of the things brought up here? This is the article I found: [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=495&invol=103] Runa27 19:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC) ETA: Well, I mean I know what "Lewd/Indecent Acts to Child" implied, but I didn't know what age counted as a "child" under Oklahoma law (apparently, "under 16"), or whether that conviction would have included actual rape or groping or just say, flashing/streaking or talking dirty (apparently, it practically covers ALL of that, to an extent). I'm not a complete idiot, of course, I just know that "Lewd/Indecent" can mean an awful lot of things. Runa27 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

{{U|Z. Patterson}} requested an assessment. This easily passes a C-class test. For the B-class assessment, here's my evaluation, quoting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment:

1. "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources," etc. - yes, every sentence or paragraph is sourced to reliable sources.
2. "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." - Yes and yes.
3. "The article has a defined structure." - yes.
4. "The article is reasonably well-written." - yes.
5. "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate." - noted: I don't think an info box would work here, but perhaps an image of Simon Legree or another famous con man could be included?
6. "The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible." - yes, but there are a few minor changes that could be done: (1) define or explain "tort law" and "action" as a personal injury lawsuit; (2) explain, or at least make links in, "To be successful, the plaintiff needs to take action against the person in control of the animal."; and (3) either include more links, or explain "It is common to distinguish between harmless animals and wild animals."

So, with those few fixes, we have a B-class article! Bearian (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Bearian}} I believe I made the changes you suggested. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::Great job! Thank you for taking the feedback with equanimity. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Peer review/Scienter/archive1}}

I think a section of fictional examples, such as films and novels, would be interesting. I'm thinking, for example, of The Sting and Uncle Tom.

File:legree.png Bearian (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Bearian}} Generally, we try to avoid WP:INPOPULARCULTURE sections, but I think we could add a section about scienter in assault where this is used as an example. I will need to do more research on the topic of scienter in assault and other violent crimes before we go ahead and add this image. Z. Patterson (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, thank you. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)