Talk:Preterintention

preterintention: voluntary unlawful conduct which unintentionally carries out a more serious offence.

I have finished contributing. I want to point out that:

• a) some administrators asked me to remove references to all the countries in the world, and I did so;
• b) other administrators asked me to refer to all the countries in the world, and I will not do so: I am not schizophrenic yet;
• c) the sources are objective and not the result of original research: just indulge them;
• d) the language is correct: there are examples in brackets for the uninitiated;

Any discussion is useless: those who do not know diamonds will always treat them like stones.

Regards.

Post scriptum:

For administrators who doubt the sources given in the article, here are some sources that give the notion in native English:

1) https://books.google.it/books?id=K_CxoJOSOvkC&pg=PA140&dq=preterintenzionale+criminal+Law&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjegdm1n5KIAxUY3wIHHZz7OSoQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=preterintenzionale%20criminal%20Law&f=false

2)https://books.google.it/books?id=PbmHEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA160&dq=preterintenzionale+criminal+Law&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjegdm1n5KIAxUY3wIHHZz7OSoQuwV6BAgNEAY#v=onepage&q=preterintenzionale%20criminal%20Law&f=false

3) https://books.google.it/books?id=XPiADwAAQBAJ&pg=PT124&dq=preterintenzionale+criminal+Law&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjegdm1n5KIAxUY3wIHHZz7OSoQuwV6BAgMEAc#v=onepage&q=preterintenzionale%20criminal%20Law&f=false

4) I have respected the universal principle (of Wittgenstein's tractatus) of competence: I am a jurist, with a doctorate and a specialization on unintentional crime, aberratio ictus, aberratio delicti, aberratio cause, etc. In general encyclopedias it is not treated correctly: << ...European civil-law codes place a greater emphasis than do common-law systems on the dangerousness of the actor's conduct and the circumstances surrounding the act. Thus, bodily injury resulting in death and death that is a result of negligence rather than recklessness are more heavily penalized in European than in Anglo-American systems. Whereas in England death resulting from a crime is defined as murder only in the case of a few serious crimes, such as robbery or rape, European codes often punish any killer as a murderer if the culprit has employed a deadly weapon...>> . https://www.britannica.com/topic/homicide

5) THERE IS NOTHING ORIGINAL RESEARCH IN THE ARTICLE: THE SOURCE IS SCRUPULOUSLY INDICATED IN THE NOTE RELATING TO CONSOLIDATED AND BINDING LAWS OR JURISPRUDENCE SENTENCES. WE MUST RESPECT THE PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA!:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

6) The Wikipedia user needs an encyclopedic article that is correct in content, and the numerous notes in different languages ​​serve to prove that everything is 100% correct; for simple/incorrect descriptions there are already online resources: https://lawschoolbuddy.info/when-the-resulting-harm-is-greater-than-means-employed-by-the-offender/ Or https://definition.homes/preterintencion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph77237 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC) in seven edits from 08:11, 24 August 2024 through 15:34, 29 August 2024 (diff)

Article title

When I accepted this, I moved it to "Preterintention" instead of "Praeterintention", as I believe this is the more common spelling in English contexts. It also corresponds to our wiktionary entry: wikt:preterintentional. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Your latest corrections no longer explain why the attempted misdemeanor is necessary; a lot of work for nothing. By now, it looks more and more like this:https://definition.homes/preterintencion/ This way of working is not my style; greetings. Joseph77237 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Joseph77237, if there are sections you think need to remain in the article, that I removed, can you bring the text here for discussion? -- asilvering (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

but what should I report????: they have completely vandalized it: now, after the intervention of other users/administrators, the entry appears to be grossly wrong: from the beginning; I have no words!!!! But to write a legal entry, don't you need a law degree?, or can anyone write it?: in any case, at the moment it is completely vandalized. I confirm that I have finished contributing to Wikipedia: I respect the principle that to write a legal entry you need to have the educational skills (law degree) to write a law entry. Goodbye. Joseph77237 (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can contribute to any article on Wikipedia; "anyone can edit" is a foundational principle of the project. -- asilvering (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

ok. But I don't agree: the 5 pillars of Wikipedia should be interpreted through the criteria of official hermeneutics: "literal", "systematic", "teleological", "logical", "rational" etc.: not having any mathematical skills I wouldn't dream of writing/modifying entries of arithmetic or similar. Regards Joseph77237 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Simpliying the article for a general audience is not vandalism. Having a law degree doesn't count for much if you are incapable of writing clearly in English (given that this the English Wikipedia). Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Cit. <<Anyone can contribute to any article on Wikipedia; "anyone can edit" is a foundational principle of the project. -- asilvering (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)>>.

●the cases of unintentional crimes are present in the "living law" of all the states in the world. Some, consistently, honestly apply the model of objective liability; other states, to adapt to the principle "nulla poena sine culpa" require negligence but only presumed! (it is never ascertained in concrete!); and still other states have divided the preterintentional crime into two crimes: malicious injuries in formal conjunction with involuntary homicide (but negligence continues to be presumed!). In fact, the comparative doctrine speaks of masked/hidden objective liability etc., and has coined the term "lying models": it is impossible to expect that the agent can commit a crime with caution (as if it were a boxing match). Below is the most authoritative and freely accessible literature (also oral with English subtitles). regards.

● Giorgio Licci, La struttura della responsabilità preterintenzionale (The Structure of Preterintentional Liability), audio version free on YouTube channel platform, with subtitles that can be activated in English.

● Casi di diritto penale comparato. (2005). Italia: Giuffrè.

●Licci, G. (2014). Modelli nel diritto penale: Filogenesi del linguaggio penalistico. II edizione. Italia: Giappichelli.

●Prothais, A. (1985). Tentative et attentat. (n.p.): FeniXX réédition numérique.

●Maréchal, J. (2003). Essai sur le résultat dans la théorie de l'infraction pénale. Francia: Editions L'Harmattan.

●https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/dfa8b98f-dba5-748b-e053-3a05fe0a3a96/Basile_Commento%20all'art.%20584%20c.p.pdf

●https://www.salapenaltribunalmedellin.com/images/doctrina/libros01/Tratado_De_Derecho_Penal_-_Parte_General-III.pdf

●Basile, F. (2005). La colpa in attività illecita: un'indagine di diritto comparato sul superamento della responsabilità oggettiva. Italia: Giuffrè. Joseph77237 (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything you write only solidifies my opinion that you cannot write clear English prose. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

and instead in the article now everything is clear?: it repeats the same things 4 times, mixes preterintent with eventual malice,...then some administrators/users asked me to put only verifiable sources; where is L. Staffler free verifiable? Joseph77237 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It is considerably more clear now, yes. For one thing, it states at the outset that the concept pertains mostly to civil law, a rather important thing to note in an article written in English! If you can clarify which parts are "mixing preterintent with eventual malice" (it is also not clear to me what this means), that would help other editors correct any errors of fact. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

"Other legal systems have limited a defendant's criminal liability to situations where the defendant negligently or recklessly caused the preterintentional harm."

recklessly = dolus eventualis; Joseph77237 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

"and conspiracy." what is the connection with the preterintencional ipad? Joseph77237 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Art. 584 "preterintentional homicide" is the heading, not the law: it has no relevance for the judge; "expressly foreseen" means a willful crime that produces a more serious and unwanted event (for example unintentional abortion, mistreatment in the family with unwanted death event etc.) Joseph77237 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

<<In praeterintentional homicide the term "killing" is used and not that of "murder" (as in intentional homicide), in order to underline the agent's unwillingness to kill.>>[

should have been left: "it would be appropriate to use the term killing..." simply because it is a doctrinal hope that is almost never translated into law by the states Joseph77237 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

<<Many civil law legal systems have rejected preterintentional offenses and the underlying doctrine of versari in re illicita, as reflecting a strict liability approach incompatible with modern constitutional guarantees.[56] In some countries including Spain,[57] Sweden,[58] and Switzerland, preterintentional crimes have been split into their intentional and unintentional parts, and therefore defendants are charged with a voluntary crime for the intentional act (e.g. grave bodily harm) and an involuntary crime for the resulting unintended harm (e.g. negligent homicide).[59 >>.

This is a case of concealment of objective responsibility (for the most serious unintended crime): negligence, imprudence etc. requires the violation of a precautionary rule preventing the preterintentional event, which is not ascertained but only presumed. Joseph77237 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

<<Some legal scholars have argued that cases in which someone commits an preterintentional offence must be regulated, as a legal protection vacuum is unacceptable.[60][61]>>

very simply: D wants to hit C, but ends up killing C involuntarily; can this event not be regulated? Joseph77237 (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

<<Other countries in which preterintentional crimes were formerly recognized but have been abolished or greatly limited include South Africa[62] and Botswana,[63] both of which rejected the traditional versari principle in the 1960s as embodying a form of strict liability not compatible with modern approaches to criminal law. In South African criminal law, the state of mind necessary for a defendant to be criminally responsible for an unintended consequence of a criminal act is dolus eventualis, which requires both foreseeing the potential for harm and acting in reckless disregard of the consequences.[64] The courts of Zimbabwe and Namibia have similarly adopted a requirement that a defendant foresee the reasonable possibility of the preterintentional harm occurring.[65]>>

"Dolus eventualis": D accepted the risk that the death event could occur.

"Homicide beyond intention": D did not foresee the possible death event, nor would he have accepted the risk. Joseph77237 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I am confused, because the reference to article 584 of the Codice Penale was added by you in this edit -- correctly , it seems to me. I am unclear as to why you are now objecting to it because the heading is "not the law". If you are now arguing that 584 does not define preterintentional homicide, despite both the heading and the content, then you're going to need to explain why.

I am also confused by your statement about dolus eventualis. Either preterintentionality is a category that applies to a universal legal problem (whether and under what circumstances we should punish people for criminal outcomes that go beyond their criminal intent), in which case it necessarily encompasses the imposition of criminal liability based on negligence or recklessness toward unintended outcomes, or it applies only to situations in which "D did not foresee the possible death event, nor would he have accepted the risk," in which case the category of preterintentional crime would not apply at all in any of the countries that require a culpable mental state as to the preterintentional harm. If you are saying that all jurisdictions that limit liability for preterintentional crimes to culpable mental states actually impute those mental states based solely on the outcome having occurred (i.e. all such jurisdictions are lying about requiring a culpable mental state), I'm not saying you're wrong, but that kind of sweeping statement would really require gold-plated sourcing.

I thank you for creating this article on this significant topic. I am sure your arguments above are well-founded but we have to be able to unpack these concepts in ways that the general English-speaking reader can understand. (And speaking of competency -- explaining things in clear and simple terms is, after all, an essential competency not only for Wikipedians but also for lawyers and legal scholars, since a law that is inaccessible to the people cannot be the law.) Overall, it seems to me that the optimal approach here would be to retain a broad scope for the article, but also include more discussion about the boundaries of preterintentionality, how it relates to other concepts like indirect intent, and how different scholars have defined it. (If there is one thing that lawyers have in common across all legal systems it's that we never stop arguing about what words mean, and IMO adequately reflecting that fact and the concomitant fuzziness of nearly all legal concepts is a recurrent challenge for Wikipedia's coverage of legal topics.) -- Visviva (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The rubric (which in Latin means "written in red ink") of a provision is the short title that precedes it and summarizes its content. It has no legal value, nor is it relevant for exegetical purposes (CEDU, Charter of Nice, etc.): "Rubrica legis non est lex"

https://www.brocardi.it/R/rubrica-legis-non-est-lex.html#:~:text=Spiegazione,%C3%A8%20rilevante%20ai%20fini%20esegetici. Joseph77237 (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

● Preterintention = Dolus (direct/undetermined/eventualis)* + Presumed Culpa** (masked objective liability: for example Germany), or objective liability** (for example: US).

• (Conduct) + **(event beyond intention)

●see:

•Derecho Penal Parte General. (n.d.). (n.p.): Universidad Alas Peruanas;

● For masked objective liability (including countries [Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, etc.) that have divided the prerintentional crime into two crimes: the crime of negligent injury with manslaughter) see:

• Licci, G. (2013). Figure del diritto penale: Il sistema italiano. Italia: Giappichelli.

Licci, G. (2014). Modelli nel diritto penale: Filogenesi del linguaggio penalistico. II edizione. Italia: Giappichelli.

• or, see, with Google, "giorgio licci Joseph77237 (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

For dol éventuel vs delit preterintentional see: https://books.google.it/books?id=Sb7_EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&dq=pr%C3%A9terintentionnel&hl=it&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1qfOj9saIAxXBiv0HHU6PNsEQuwV6BAgIEAg#v=onepage&q=pr%C3%A9terintentionnel&f=false Joseph77237 (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

for those who have the desire and power to correct all the errors inserted by other users:

1)Amato, A. D., Fucito, F. (2020). Criminal Law in Italy. Paesi Bassi: Wolters Kluwer;

2)The Western Codification of Criminal Law: A Revision of the Myth of Its Predominant French Influence. (2018). Germania: Springer International Publishing;

3) Spitzmiller, R. (2011). Selected Areas of Italian Tort Law: Cases and Materials in a Comparative Perspective. Italia: Il Sirente;

4)González Lagier, D. (2013). The Paradoxes of Action: (Human Action, Law and Philosophy). Paesi Bassi: Springer Netherlands;

5)Environmental Crime in Europe. (2017). Regno Unito: Bloomsbury Publishing;

6)Innovative Technologies and Signal Processing in Perinatal Medicine: Volume 2. (n.d.). Germania: Springer Nature Switzerland;

7) Watkin, T. G. (2018). The Italian Legal Tradition. Regno Unito: Taylor & Francis;

8)Mazzacuva, F. (2017). Le pene nascoste: Topografia delle sanzioni punitive e modulazione dello statuto garantistico. Italia: Giappichelli;

8) Fiorella, A., Selvaggi, N. (2018). Dall' "utile" al "giusto": il futuro dell'illecito dell'ente da reato nello "spazio globale". Italia: G. Giappichelli;

9)Bassiouni, M. C., De Cataldo Neuburger, L. (1985). Diritto penale degli Stati Uniti d'America. Italia: Giuffrè, pagg. 200 e ss.

10) Elliott, C. (2001). French Criminal Law. Regno Unito: Taylor & Francis;

11)Introduction to French Law. (2008). Paesi Bassi: Kluwer Law International;

12) Joseph77237 (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

ok., there are some errors in the body of the text., the books listed are free from Google books. Joseph77237 (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed some errors.

There are two examples that are repeated, one with Caio, and another with a slap to a child. Do the repeated examples need to be there and if not, could different examples be used? BigChrisKenney (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The examples do not need to be there; in fact, it's probably better to remove them since they do not seem to be used in the cited sources. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know: I stopped contributing. Regards. Joseph77237 (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

why?: I don't find it rational that Wikipedia's specialist entries are written without having the relevant academic qualifications and expertise; why?: the user must consult a correct entry and not an incorrect one. Joseph77237 (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the image necessary?

Is it appropriate to include File:Emperor Hadrian on the Lex Cornelia and unintentional killing.jpg in the article? It's in Latin, for one thing, which we shouldn't assume our readers will understand. What's more, the term preterintention or praeter intentionem doesn't even appear in the selected text. He's talking about a similar concept, from what I can make out with my rusty Latin, but is it really appropriate to use it as an example of preterintention when no variant of that term is used? If we do decide to include that quote, I think it would make more sense to transcribe it into a {{quote box}} template, rather than having screenshot of a book. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Significant problems at the article

Significant problems of comprehensibility and cohesion at the article are being discussed at this user talk page discussion, because they are tied exclusively to issues related to one prolific contributor to the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging asilvering, as the Afc approving editor (diff) for any thoughts. Note: 289 edits, almost all by the creator, since your move. Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh for pete's sake. @Mathglot, if you open up the article history, you'll see that @Visviva and I spent a while fixing it up. I see that it's regressed since then. I don't really have any desire to get further involved in the article itself. -- asilvering (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anybody does, given its current state and the preponderance of recent history. Sorry your improvements got swallowed by the deluge. I suspect it will soon be a stub, and I hope you and other volunteers will feel better about helping to improve it then. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Notability

The concept of "preterintention" seems to teeter on the edges of notability based on the fact that it is a legitimate, though esoteric principle of criminal law, mostly in non-common law jurisdictions, thus less covered in English. The term preterintention (or praeterintention) is a rare word in English, that is found in a handful of books and a smattering of journal articles. The adjectival form preterintentional exists and may be more frequent, but I haven't looked into it. Otherwise, it seems to consist of a dozen or two articles in Italian, German, and a couple other European languages, which makes sense because those are the legal systems that have them, or that report on them.

• print – not in my Webster's 2nd edition unabridged (1962; 2098 pages)
• Ngrams – shows zero results, because it does not meet the minimum bar to appear in ngrams, which is based on Google books
• Books – a small number of books, but note the number of titles in Italian, Spanish, or German even when the articles are in English. There don't appear to be any major works devoted to it, or anything like a chapter or major section of a chapter in a law book published in English.
• Scholar – about nine articles, three in Spanish-titled works, one German (articles all in English)

There are many several dozen results for the adjectival form, preterintentional, and the noun form for the state derived from the adjective, preterintentionality, is found in a handful of documents. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue, as there are plenty of results in Spanish; in Italian, it seems to be used more in the adjectival form preterintenzionale, as in the expression, preterintenzionale (preterintentional offense). German Präterintentionalität has a couple dozen hits, including such extremely niche articles as "Preterintentionality in Hungarian criminology before 1848" (in German), although the proper German word (at least according to our sister project) is Erfolgsqualifikation.

Notability of the concept is not clear to me, and even if notable, likely it does not deserve a standalone article in the same way, say, that "dol dépassé" does not deserve its own article, being such a niche item of French law, and too minor to deserve a mention in an encyclopedic article about French criminal law. Ideal for a Master's thesis, though, as it is niche enough that probably nobody may have written anything substantial about it yet. Feedback encouraged. Mathglot (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be and you could just take it to AfD as a TNT delete. -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I've done a few TNT's, and some Afd's with the goal of deletion, but I'm not sure what a TNT delete is, can you enlighten? Mathglot (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

It's where you go to AfD and your nomination statement basically argues "whether or not this topic is notable, this is in such a state that it's better to blow it up and start again, if at all". WP:TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Note to self: if we go to Afd, as seems likely, I would like to preserve this thread (somewhere) as a possibly helpful list of links from which to find sources which could be used to create a section or paragraph to be added somewhere (mens rea or culpability?) and then have this page title redirect to it. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

They can restore another user's version (full of content errors) from last year.

P.S. Wikipedia, if it continues to have entries that are completely wrong in content, risks disappearing within 5 years: replaced by Gemini, and other AI; Reasons: those who consult felony-murder or dolus eventualis are interested in the content being correct and not that it is completely wrong (as it is now) and that they fail the exams they have to take in which they decide to resort to Wikipedia.

Regards Joseph77237 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't help but ask - is anyone in the world writing exams on this topic in English? -- asilvering (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

No, Joseph, we will not be restoring another user's version from last year. If, as I expect, there is consensus for a rewrite, then we will start from a blank page, and recreate the article from scratch starting with reliable sources. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and part of the disclaimers is that *nothing in Wikipedia is guaranteed to be accurate*. Please read the Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which also applies to your article, as well as every other one. Any law student who decided to take an exam based on anything in Wikipedia, whether a legal topic or anything else, is a fool. Wikipedia is 24 this year, and predictions of its demise have been made continuously since its inception. It is now the #9 site on the internet. Mathglot (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

a Wikipedia article written by someone who is not a lawyer is insane: it harms Wikipedia and the users who consult it.

Regard. Joseph77237 (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Joseph77237, this view is fundamentally incompatible with our project. -- asilvering (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

As a Wikimedia executive said: <<Wikipedia in Italian is in the hands of four desperate people who are scaring away serious, prepared and reasonable contributors [...]>>>. Joseph77237 (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Bringing it back to on-topic discussion of notability and where to go from here: I think it could go either way, that is, either a short article, i.e., a self-contained permastub linked from a couple of places like Mens rea and Culpability, or a paragraph or brief section in one of those articles or perhaps at Criminal procedure. I am gathering sources for a possible rebooted article or section, and would like to hear from others about what direction you see this going. WP:PAGEDECIDE is relevant here. Good English sources especially welcome; most of mine are Italian or German. Mathglot (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

All the sources on planet earth on preterintention already entered: ALL. But the consensus on the article is that of 4 users who do not have a law degree??🤣

Greetings. Have fun. Joseph77237 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Having seen the abundantly sourced content on a topic with almost no footprint in online media, sometimes three citations in a ten word sentence, I am not at all surprised to hear that every source on the planet is cited in the article. Only your source (thesis) is not, or if it is, you haven't added the |type= param to mark it as |type=thesis (or dissertation). (You don't have to add it if you don't want, but you may. Did I miss it somehow? It would be a pity if it were the only published material on the planet that is not here.) But don't worry, none of the sources will be lost, they can all be found here, nicely organized and alphabetized. The main points of the topic do not require a law degree and can (and should have been) stated in a simple few sentences. Soon, they will be. Sometimes, writing an article about a professional topic you know very intimately, very possibly better than any other living person, can be a great asset for writing original, in-depth articles in law journals, and at the same time be a handicap for writing an article in an online encyclopedia targeting a general audience. Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

the only source on preterintention that I didn't include is my article on French preterintention: for the sake of fairness. Your way of doing things reminds me of Alberto Sordi's Marchese del Grillo: << I am, and you.....>> You claim to be right in violation of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia: for technical articles, technicians are needed.

greetings. have fun. Joseph77237 (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I figured it might be something like that, but given the number of sources already in the article, nobody would accuse you of ref spamming, so you are free to add your thesis if you wish, either as a citation, or if you prefer as an entry in the § Further reading section. I got as far as this, but was unable to find it. I assume you wrote it in Italian, or French. I, for one, would like to read it. Your allusion to Il Marchese del Grillo feels like an insult, but as I have found tat communication with you has always been difficult, I will assume that I have misread your intent, and it was well-meant. Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It is a scientific article published more than 10 years ago, not a thesis from the University of Court: I went to court for the scientific sources. But nothing special: the most authoritative sources are already indicated in the Wikipedia entry.

Greetings Joseph77237 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources

A complete list of the citations in the article has been extracted for future reference and may be found at Talk:Preterintention/List of citations. Joseph, you have previously stated that your list of citations was exhaustive (diff), here:

All the sources on planet earth on preterintention already entered: ALL.

which I could well believe, as almost nothing exists in English about it, and the article has over one hundred references. But now I am starting to have my doubts, as I did a Google Scholar search (link), searching for the one-word term preterintention and got a grand total of sixteen journal articles. Here are the first six search results:

top six Scholar results

Top six results for Google scholar search for preterintention: The Preterintention: Is It Necessary in Ecuadorian Criminal Law? (a translation of the Spanish one.) La Preterintención:¿ Es necesaria en la legislación penal ecuatoriana? (available at HeinOnline via TWL) Preterintención: Un periódico de ayer, Á Salgado-González Präterintentionalität und Zurechnungsdogmatik; L Staffler (a similar article by Staffler is present in your citations) La culpa en el ejercicio profesional médico [PDF] DELITTO PRETERINTENZIONALE.

Of these, none are in the § References so far, although one related source by Staffler (2015) may be another edition or a translation or something. So despite your claim of an exhaustive list already in the article, it seems like a rewrite may be possible using the top results in academic journals. And that's without considering searches for Italian, French, Portuguese, or German terms, which will likely turn up even more sources; or book search, which may also turn up more. And I would still like to have a link to your Ph.D. thesis on the topic; other editors may wish to cite it, even if you are too modest to include it. Mathglot (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)