Humanities desk
< September 12	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 13

Slander

Slander is a crime. If someone spreads a slander to a third party, but tells that third party to deny the slander, is the third party guilty of any crime if they refuse to reveal that a slander was made known to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.4.14 (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many jurisdictions, slander is a tort, not a crime. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In most jurisdictions, the third party would have no obligation to reveal what had been said to them. Only if the so called "slander" is actually true and is about some other crime that has been committed, would the third party have an obligation to reveal what had been said...(this is not legal advice, please consult a lawyer!) There may be some jurisdictions where the law is more "totalitarian". Dbfirs 13:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various countries have greatly differing legal systems, so the legal opinions supplied by Nelson Ricardo and Dbfirs are unlikely to apply everywhere. Common law, Civil law and Sharia law are three examples of different traditions, and a given government might have specific case law or judicial rulings. Even though the question might be a purely theoretical one, it should be noted that Wikipedia does not provide legal advice. Edison (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stated a fact, not an opinion. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and I didn't intend to provide a legal opinion (I'm not a lawyer, so I've added a disclaimer to my second sentence.) I hadn't considered the possibility that the OP (possibly from Harrogate, North Yorkshire), had voluntarily submitted himself to Sharia law. Dbfirs 07:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the respondents so far are on the right track. The definition of what slander is, and what legal remedies there are for it, are likely to vary widely around the world. Even if we were allowed to give legal advice, there's not enough information in the OP's question to be able to give an answer, other than "talk to a lawyer". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo is correct it is usually a tort. There is, or has been the notion of criminal defamation. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of you have answered the crux of the question (btw, slander/libel is still actually a crime in some jurisdictions) which is "is the third party guilty of any crime if they refuse to reveal that a slander was made known", which of course begs the question, to whom are they refusing to reveal. That would be the actual question here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under English law, there's no legal duty to report a crime (or a civil wrong, such as defamation). However, the victim of the defamation could subpoena the publishee of the slander to testify that they received it, who could then be liable for contempt of court or perjury if they failed to cooperate. Tevildo (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure out just what the OP is asking. So some guy comes up to me and says, "Joe Celebrity is cheating on his wife, but don't repeat this and don't tell anybody I told you." Is that the scenario the OP is describing? Or something different? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're asking, if we take the words they wrote literally, "is the third party guilty of any crime if they refuse to reveal that a slander was made known to them". We don't know who the nebulous party that they're refusing to reveal to is though. If it's just some guy on the street I would assume the answer is no. If it's the government the answer becomes a lot more complicated. In what process, in what form, in what jurisdiction, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would that third party know, at the time, whether a bit of gossip was actually a slander and not the truth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely interpretation of the OP's comment is Shadowjams final point namely the OP wants to know if someone may get in legal trouble if they refuse to reveal that they were told some slander to the government in some way, e.g. the police, in court. In that case, they will obviously be made aware that they are being asked about something that is slanderous, it generally wouldn't matter whether or not they know what they were told was slanderous at the time; since the point is not whether or not they can get in trouble for hearing something slanderous, but whether they can get in trouble for hearing something slanderous and refusing to reveal that you did so when specifically asked about it at a later date. (There is the in between case of whether someone may be required to report that they heard something slanderous if they know or find out it is slanderous without being specifically asked about it but that doesn't seem to be what the OP is referring to.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest spitfire pilot and 'still living'

Warrant Officer Leslie 'Tiny' Gibson DFM born 13/05/1914 now living in Tiverton Devon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusfaye (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marcus. I'm guessing that you're suggesting we should note this somewhere. But unless WO Gibson meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability for other reasons (which are not about how brave he may have been, but solely whether independent reliable published sources have written substantially about him), then becoming "the oldest surviving X" is never a sufficient notability for an article. It is possible that somewhere there is a "List of oldest YYY" articles in which he might fit, but I rather doubt it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about your father-in-law here back in June and received some advice. I'm not sure we can add much more. If you're suggesting an article about him, a Google search suggests that there may indeed be insufficient material about Mr. Gibson published in reliable sources to meet the inclusion criteria. - Ka renjc 18:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A church that doesn't preach the gospel?

What does it mean when a Christian describes a church "that doesn't preach the gospel"? What characteristics need to be there in order to be qualified as a "church that doesn't preach the gospel"? 164.107.103.35 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing implies that somehow they don't support the Bible, which seems kind of contradictory. Can you find an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Christian jargon for something. "doesn't preach the gospel" Google search. By the way, why do you assume that the phrase implies that so-and-so does not support the Bible? Could it be that the New Testament Gospel accounts of the Christian Bible are supposed to hold the gospel and a church that doesn't preach the gospel somehow lacks the gospels in their bible version? 164.107.103.35 (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slight against whatever church they don't like; evangelicals typically describe the Catholic church that way. Hang around long enough here and you'll probably see PlasmaPhysics describe some denomination like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meaning is supposed to be subjective. That is, no standard meaning. I am told that it means, from a Presbyterian Church in America perspective, that some churches do not encourage its members or parents encouraging their children to repent and be saved. Instead of being constantly reminded that they are sinful and in need of a savior, a church that does not preach the gospel would mean a church that "strays away from Christ's message" about repentance and salvation. Instead of relying on oneself, the Christian should rely on God. Thanks for trying. 164.107.103.35 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have answered your own question, could you at least put "resolved" at the top of this? If you still have a question, could you please state it politely and clearly? IBE (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would Unitarian Universalism qualify for the OP? --Jayron32 03:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is subjective and as such, different people mean different things when they use it. I've been hearing it more and more among conservative evangelicals in reference to "Megachurches" (and their related televangelists) where the sermons are seen as more entertainment or, at best, something akin to motivational speaking, feel-good, self-help babble no different than you'd hear on PBS (admittedly with a few, albeit rather "neutral", bible verses mentioned). A related disparaging term is The Feel Good Gospel referencing the de-emphasizing of the the results of sin and the responsibilities of the Forgiven, commonly called "watering down" the Gospel.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, when Church A sees Church B as a non-gospel-preaching church, the meaning is as follows: Church A believes that the Bible is divine revelation in every sense of the term, and Church B's view of the Bible or interpretation of the Bible is substantially different to the point that Church A believes that Church B's members can't be saved (i.e. have God's favor, live spiritually with God after death, and eventually be resurrected for non-ending life with God) because some critical portion of the Bible's message is being omitted. Exceptions surely exist, but it's normally not a slight or a slur; Church A says that Church B is so badly in error from God's teachings that God will reject them — it's typically a statement that flows rather logically if you accept Church A's premises. Of course, a wide range of things might be the reason for A's argument. Perhaps they say that B is preaching a heretical view of God himself (for example, Protestants often say this about the LDS, who preach a Godhead of three different beings), or perhaps they say that B has rejected the Bible's ultimate authority, or perhaps they say that B is preaching a wrong (i.e. useless, God-angering, etc.) method of being saved (this is the primary issue when Protestants say this about Catholics), or perhaps they say that B's not preaching that people need to be saved (this is the primary issue when used against megachurches/televangelists), or perhaps they say any of tons of other things, but the specific examples I've mentioned are generally the most common. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]