Talk:Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Citations needed
editI put the citations needed tag on "wills being scratched in artillery shells" and "cheques being written on chalkboards". Both examples are real (I recall them from University days), but I don't have sources to hand, so I have left tags on until I can locate some. I think Chitty on Contract provides citations for both. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Bits and pieces
editThe legal quotes need fixing by someone who knows how to do legal quotes.
Victor Chandler is the name of the bookies I believe this is a typo.
Poem
editAPH Also corresponded with the Inland Revenue in poetry. A later demand got his response (just doing this off my head and probably not right):
Dear sir thank you for your smart
I do not think this note will make you frown. The sum involved is only half a crown.
Which APH said "Shows there are people with wit working at the tax office", but wrote back applauding the poem finishing:
An author should not ever encourage those In future I would write to you in prose
I forget where this is, it's not in his life and times. It could be in Frank Muir's work somewhere.
Requested Move
editThe name of the published article is The Negotiable Cow I think the title should reflect that. SimonTrew (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- or Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock, which should at least be a redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - This article indicates that "the negotiable cow" is an informal name; per WP:THE, the definite article should only be used if it's the actual title, which would be Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock in this case. Since this is just a common name, "the" is inappropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree and have moved it to this title and updated the lead accordingly. I think we now have every possible alternative as a redirect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- In my 1935 copy it is Board of Inland Revenue vs. Haddock, but is subtitled THE NEGOTIABLE COW. I Agree best left here. The problem is many of th eother cases are Haddock vs. this or Board of this vs. Haddock or whatever, so when actually going through the books it is really a bit of a toss-up to decide which should be first. I know in anthologies it is often just given as The Negotiable Cow. SimonTrew (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Summary is pretty much lifted straight from APH
editI am a little worried about the summary of the case. It is lifted pretty much word for word from the actual essay (although abbreviated). I think this would probably be a copyright infringement. SimonTrew (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)