Talk:Misfeasance

Rename article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- Kjkolb 09:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should go by one name, probably malfeasance as per the Google test, not by three names listed in serial. 66.229.160.94 05:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 11:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about....[edit]

This has been huge in the national news on several fronts, it might even be used as a dodge or shield....

What if a seemingly honestly but wrongly prejudiced official engages in seeming willful blindness or proud ignorance in his research (poor research) "confirming the obvious," thus remains ill-informed and takes highly damaging action based upon "the information he had available?"

I've been using "professional negligence" and even "criminal negligence," but why I came here....is there a better term?
--68.127.80.84 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Can someone confirm[edit]

Can someone confirm that non/mal/mis-feasance are limited to contractual obligations? What about a railroad-switch operator. Would it make sense to say that he has commited nonfeasance is he doesn't show up to operate the switch; he commits misfeasance if he does so negligently; he commits malfeasance if he does so with an intention view to harm the passengers on the train? Piratejosh85 (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]