Talk:Uberrima fides

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Uberrima or Uberrimae?[edit]

The term should be Uberrimae Fides, not Uberrima Fides.--Major Bonkers 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Uberrima Fides is the singular. Uberrimae Fidei is the plural. Both translate to "utmost good faith" in English. Legis 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both spellings are right, in different usages. In the title of this article, we are speaking of "Utmost Good Faith" as the subject of the discussion. So it is properly in the nominative case (uberrima fides). But when we say, "An insurance policy is a contract uberrimae fidei," we are using the phrase "utmost good faith" in the genitive case: "a contract of utmost good faith". MCTWSF 23:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvete! Why does uberrima sound strikingly un-Latin? Of course über is from German and the nearest Latin cognate would be super- or borrowed Greek hyper-. I am still trying to locate uberrima in available Latin dictionaries, but is it possible that it is a common phrase just misidentified as Latin? 76.181.43.101 (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin and utmost good faith[edit]

The principle of utmost good faith is an ideal demand for all public relation activities for politicians, goverments, coorporations and NGO's.

In presenting a new legislation to the parliament, the government must, according to this principle present all facts and uncertainties in a balance way in order to give a basis for an informed decision.

When the legislation is going to be presented to the public, not all details can be conveyed to the public and a selection of key issiues must be made following this principle. There is nothing wrong in trying to find an optimal way of presenting you case as long as you do not voilate the principles.

There are many examples where the utmost faith principle hasn't been followed with dramatic consequences for many people. In these cases the word spin or progaganda might be used.

There will of course be a grey zone, where it is difficult to judge if the principle of utmost good faith is voilated or not.

"Spin" might be looked upon as the negation to "the principles of Utmost good faith".

I think there is a need to relate "spin" and "utmost good faith". I hope that someone will agree with me and will start writing about this i Wikipedia.

Therfore there must be a description of the differences and there must be a link to [Spin]

--Kfl 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal might make an interesting PhD thesis, but it would be original research and is therefore unsuitable for wikipedia. See Wikipedia:NOR. --Chewy m (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]