Talk:Good faith

CTR law?

I don't know what this stands for (contract?) Can someone who knows for sure replace it with the full word? Blankfrackis (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the question. On 11/26/2009 the section Good faith effort in the article started talking about employers and contract bidding, but also has a link in the words 'CTR Law' that goes to Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction. The linked article seems to talk about a law dealing with nuclear disarmament in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, but doesn't go into any part of the law that might help to define what a good faith effort is, if such a part to that law exists. 4.242.174.141 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like it is a Washington State Law: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/transit/ctr

The in-article hiperlink is mistaken and should be corrected.

177.138.210.163 (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

re-write it in plain English!

Can someone who knows what this article is about re-write it in plain English!

I'll see what I can do.

Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 20:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thought,mI can barely understand it.

Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 17:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Move to bona fide(s)

This article looks odd in category Latin legal phrases. My suggestion is to move this article under Bona fide or Bona fides because under that name it is also very well known. --Thv 19:15, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

It also doesn't make sense. Bona fide, to me means, that some third party has reviewed and vetted something.

Technical Tag

I've added the technical tag to this article as it is written in rather complex language Samwehli 20:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reference to WP:FAITH

Is it really necessary to link Wikipedia:Assume good faith in the article? I'd say that for an ordinary reader (i.e. a reader who is not aware of wiki principles), it may be confusing. -- Sandius 21:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Its just that some people are adamant that assume good faith should redirect here - Jack (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation is a huge problem here...lots of people pronounce this as bona fide while it is bonaa feedeh

bona fides

I think bona fides only applies to the knowledge of facts, not to the knowledge of law; ignorantia juris non excusat, all over the world. I mean, according to Czech Law you can be in good faith about a specific right (e.g. you are absolutely certain that the Porsche in your garage belongs to you, and you don't know it belongs to your wife), but you cannot be in good faith about the law (e.g. you think that you can sell your house via a verbal contract, but the Civil Code says you cannot). 195.113.8.138 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

English Common Law & Good Faith

I've removed the unsourced statement on this. If English law doesn't contain such a concept, how come there are entire books (e.g. [1]) devoted to the subject? JulesH 10:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the misstatement that good faith can be unfounded, according to the Aristotelian notion of pistis, 'fides' or 'faith'. Good faith is always well founded. --Laocoont (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Back-formation

The Latin for 'faith' is fides. I was taught to pronounce this like fee-days.

See: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fides

The original UK English term is bona fides. The term bona fide (fie-dee) was a back-formation with the same meaning, that is probably standard in US English, and is finding its way into modern UK English.

Bona fides is not the plural of bona fide.

Readers of older documents should be aware that although they now tend to be used in different contexts as mentioned in the article, they originally had the same meaning.

I suggest that the article should be edited to reflect this. I hesitate to start it myself as it will no doubt open a can of worms, and I am short of time. GilesW (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ablative

The Latin 'bonā fidē' (long a and long e - pronounced 'bon-ay fee-dey') is in the ablative and means "from good faith", "with good faith" or "by good faith", but I don't know if that's an actual legal term or not (not being a lawyer).

GermanicusCaesar (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bad faith article needs help from available editors

The Bad faith article needs help from available editors. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Bona fides in wiki defined

Bona fides in wiki can be define as the marginal (last, next) addition to a wiki ny an author as being absolutely positive unconditionally against all possible users (and that is the author s intention). This is a first derivative required to be bigger than zero and never equal to zero, for all possible users of the wiki. It means the next author means no harm against any user so no user can claim any (of his) positive usage of the wiki was offset by the new addition to make his usage zero or a loss (less than zero), that is, diminished. The condition is hard to sustain for some historico-political themes and others, easy to sustain for others, in general difficult to assert (spoilers are ambiguous, patent exposure is possibly a loss, polemics are ambiguous, knowledge can lead to unexpected losses, etc.). Bona fides is hard to assert when considering the whole of all possible wiki users. djb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.201.5 (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good faith in Wikipedia?

Instead of wikipedia ,why not use for general encyclopedias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.219.229.158 (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good faith. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325220239/http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2007/03/wikipedia_search_and_school_ho.html to http://weblogs.hitwise.com/bill-tancer/2007/03/wikipedia_search_and_school_ho.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)