This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations: Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

• Special:Diff/1275915024

This is editorial commentary, although to be fair to editors it is Simpson's editorial commentary. I tried to track down Simpson's vague handwave at "critics" to an actual critic; but although there's a lot of discussion of the legal correctness of Coleridge's opinion, there's not much about its character, and as far as I can see Simpson xyrself came up with this and vaguely handwaved at unnamed others. The best that there is that I could find is Glanville Williams comparing the legal principle to similarly unattainable exhortations contained in the Sermon on the Mount, but that's not the same as calling the legal opinion itself a "sermon" and "pompous". Perhaps Simpson misread Williams. Uncle G (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was put in quotation marks and so attributed to Simpson, which I'd consider acceptable usage. We don't editorialize in Wikipedia's voice, but reporting such judgements made by others should be okay as long as one doesn't overdo it. But anyway, it's not essential and we can certainly do without it. Gawaon (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]