Commentaria imparia[fontem recensere]
This article as it stands is grossly mispunctuated and (worse) misconceived. Nobody would prefer Vicipaedia's definition to definitions elsewhere. Here's the text, rendered in English:
- "Habeas corpus, British law proceeds under that title. Anciently the signifying was, that a character might be conveyed to a judge, there were two appearances. . . ."
Now compare the start of the article in the English wikipedia:
- "In common law countries, habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs/) (Latin: [We command] that you have the body) is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action."
Despite a few stylistic infelicities, that's an adequate definition. Do you see the difference? Vicipaedia's version, were it to appear as a student's definition on an examination, in any language, should receive a failing grade. Suggestion: rather than try to write an article out of one's own (mis)understandings of a subject, start from a respectable text and translate it. (Btw, the preferred spelling is exsistit, not existet.) IacobusAmor 18:05, 18 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Iacobus, haec pagina est stipula. Amplifica, si potes! Corrige vel rescribe quaeso.
In verborum thesaurus meus duae formae sunt, existit et exsistit. --HansEo 16:06, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)