Talk:Silk (disambiguation)

QCs

(moved from my talk page to here) Hi, thanks for the message and explanation. Just to explain how QCs actually work - when barristers reach a certain level of seniority and recognition by other barristers, they are selected by the bar council (or equivalent in each jurisdiction), and then they are "appointed" to the QC rank by the Queen. However, the appoitnment is merely a formality, in practice the Queen has no say in who is chosen to be QC or not in each year. While it may be suitable to describe them as "appointed" in a full article, in a summary sentence describing what they are it is not appropriate. To give an analogy, a prime minister in a Commonwealth realm is chosen by his parliamentary party who are elected by the people, and then apointed by the Queen (or, technically, asked by her to form government). The Queen is bound by constitutional conventions to apopint the person thus chosen, she has no actual choice in the matter. If you had to describe "prime minister" in one sentece on a DAB page, you might say he is chosen by parliament or you might say he is elected, but you would hardly say that he is someone appointed by the Queen.

My problem with "appointed Commonwealth lawyers" was also that "Queen's Counsel, appointed Commonwealth lawyers" may be read as drawing an inaccurate equivalency - that is "all Queen's Counsel are lawyers in the Commonwealth who are appointed, and all lawyers who are appointed in the Commonwealth are Queen's Counsel", but the latter is not true and anyway "appointed" without an object doesn't really make sense here. It's an "all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples" type issue.

About barristers versus lawyers - QCs are a class of barristers, barristers are a class of lawyers. I think saying "barrister" here is more accurate but I have no major problem with using "lawyers", and I take your point (as I understand it) that readers may not understand the distinction between different types of lawyers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to detail. I think you may need to step back - the DAB is just for navigation, not for definition. Obviously it cannot be incorrect, but: 1. "appointed" doesn't need explanation of "by whom" (sidestepping UK/Commonwealth constitutional issues completely, and yes I am aware of the role of the Queen) - "select" might be an alternative although we both agree "appointed" is technically correct (I borrowed it from the article, as I'm no lawyer unlike yourself). 2. "a type of lawyer" is good, possibly "class of lawyer" although less clear - avoids any logical confusion you detail . You must understand explanations are optional, and concise! Widefox (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I am happy with the current wording, I think it's sufficient to point out that they are "a type of lawyers" or "a class of lawyers" without saying anything about how they come to hold that title. I prefer a "class" to "type" because "type" sounds to me like one of several parallel divisions separated by different qualities without order, whereas "classes" are ordinal. So you might say "solicitors and barristers are two types of lawyers", or "commercial lawyers can be divided into several types, such as corporate lawyers, banking lawyers and real property lawyers", or indeed "black tea and green tea are two types of tea". By contrast, QCs are regarded as having greater prestige than non-QCs (and command higher fees, too). So using the word "class" here avoids the potential confusion that a reader from the US, for example, who is somewhat familiar with lawyers but not UK/Commonwealth lawyers, might think QCs are a "type" of lawyers like solicitors or barristers or real property lawyers might be. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)