Miscellaneous desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 17

Contempt of court...?

I have no idea where to put this, so I guess this is the best spot.

On the talk page for Talk:2019 British prorogation controversy, there is a banner on the top stating that UK editors should not act in contempt of court when editing the page. How...does this work? I thought contempt of court only applied to people...in court.

Also, what would the UK government do if one acted in contempt of court by editing a Wikipedia article? | abequinn^fourteen 01:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was posted by This is Paul (talk · contribs).[1] He needs to come here and explain what the point of that is. It sounds like an attempt at a legal threat, which is against Wikipedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a couple of days so I missed this. The template was originally posted on the article page where I didn't feel it was appropriate so I moved it to the talk page. As I understand it the template warns UK editors not to post any information that could potentially jeopardise a criminal case, and could therefore be in contempt of court under English law. I was surprised to see it had been added to the article, but assumed good faith on the part of the person who added it, and that they'd just put it in the wrong place. Personally I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of adding it to the talk page otherwise because I wouldn't have thought it necessary to do so. This is Paul (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out on ANI, the only information that's valid for the page (or any Wikipedia page) is publicly-known already. So the template is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some fact (the name of the accused, or accuser, for example) cannot be published on the UK because of a court “gag.” Hence, UK resident editors might be in contempt of court if they edit the page to include such information. It is highly unlikely that residents elsewhere need to be concerned about this, unless it is a national security matter (in which case, jurisdiction is fluid).DOR (HK) (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And supposing someone were to violate this gag order, who would the British courts go after? How could they prove a given editor really is inside the British court's jurisdiction? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors use their real name, Mr. Bugs. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their alleged real names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the help of a court order, IP addresses can be used by British authorities to identify individual households [2] . Some (many?) editors might not know how to hide their identity. Anyway, Americans can do the job of editing those bits of information that are not allowed in the UK, being protected by the first amendment. I am not sure the prorogation itself needs that banner, but I can see how it is a useful banner to exist, given that there exist many court injunctions and superinjunctions in the UK.--Lgriot (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting that the British don't have freedom of speech. In any case, the notion that a British court would care about Wikipedia strikes me as overly optimistic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ludicrous. We have plenty of freedom of speech. Other than the US though, we actually prefer to punish hate speech (rather than reward people with the presidency for it) and we value having a fair and working legal system. To each their own I guess. Fgf10 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In America, gag orders usually pertain to the involved parties, not to the media. FYI, "we" did not elect the current president. That happened because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College, which our founding fathers stuck us with. (It must have seemed like a good idea at the time.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk if stating the obvious, see Contempt of court.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to interpret a reminder to obey the law as a legal threat is quite frankly ridiculous. What's next, someone saying "don't murder people" is making a legal threat? Give me a break. Shall we close this nonsensical discussion? Nothing weird going on. Fgf10 (talk)

If information is properly sourced, a threat to hold a Wikipedia user in contempt of court would necessarily need to target the source as well. That bogus threat should be removed from the article talk page, or at least replaced with a more mildly worded caution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to stop them pursuing others as well in a case of contempt. Anyway, there's a more relevant thread at WP:ANI discussing the notice's removal, for anyone interested. As this is the reference desk I note the Law Commission has previously explicitly mentioned that editing Wikipedia can constitute contempt (p46). That document might answer some of the OP. Also in reply to the original question, it would be a matter for the courts, not the government. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In America, the courts are part of the government. And gag orders here don't directly pertain to the media, because the government does not control the free press. Of course, if one of the parties violated the gag order, that could be a different story. But the censorship in Britain is British. It does not apply to Americans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did not expect that much input... The PDF that zzuuzz posted helps the most for me, but I live in the US, so I think that this extension of contempt to online publications is irrational... Thanks for your help. | abequinn^fourteen 00:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The ANI discussion makes it clear that this is a non-issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not aware of an instance of a judge accusing a total rando of violating a media ban during a trial. These cases, so far as I know, always involve publishers or their journalists. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar case in Australia late 2018 / early 2019, when reporting of George Pell's trial was suppressed by the court. Despite the suppression order, the information became public available (more so outside of Australia), and the details included in the Wikipedia article. There was talk of charging journalists with contempt of court. Wikipedia was mentioned, but it's not clear from the news article whether there was any serious consideration charging Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia discussions: [3][4]. 60.231.59.151 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In NZ, when it comes to suppression orders (well mostly name suppression) there have definitely been people who aren't journalists or publishers in the classic sense e.g. bloggers and ex-MPs on social media [5] [6]. (To be fair, the blogger had a fairly significant operation so maybe isn't that far off from a traditional publisher although I think it was before it reached it's peak.) People have been generally warned about social media e.g. [7] although mostly without prosecutions [8]. Other examples I found of people who can't really be considered either (although one does involved talk-back radio) [9] [10] [11] (more details about the other case mentioned [12]) [13] [14] [15] (judgement [16]).

I'm sure there are a lot more, it's not something I found easy to search especially since there's so much noise over the Death of Grace Millane case. And these cases obviously don't always get covered by media anyway. E.g. I found [17], this doesn't seem to be related to any of the others considering the details. It may be no charges were laid and at most someone was warned. Or maybe I just couldn't find it or it was never covered.

Outside NZ, Tommy Robinson (activist) is one example I can think of of someone who IMO can't reasonably be called a journalist. And I wouldn't call them a publisher at least in the traditional sense. I think there are some examples in Australia, although the closest I can think of is Derryn Hinch. I don't know if the George Pell case is a good example to look at given the number of Australian media charged likely means bloggers, social media etc are going to receive little attention. And someone akin to the Grace Millane case in NZ, it probably does make looking for other cases harder.

Anyway while this is not legal advice, I think the examples reflect the fact that if you actively go out of you way to knowingly breach a suppression order or intentional thumb your nose at the law, you are at risk. Especially in cases where it's either concerning a victim or an ongoing case, and in cases where it's not something already wide covered. It seems this is something that could happen on wikipedia, e.g. if you continually knowingly post a suppressed name, especially without an account and where it's something particularly known e.g. you know because you were in court or maybe you're a friend of the accused you're likely at some risk.

This probably means anyone doing so is likely to be violating our policies e.g. WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:RS and the info is likely to be rev deleted and you blocked if possible. But of course for most people, being charged in court tends to be a much more serious thing than simply violating wikipedia policies. While it's probably a lot less likely for someone who is not clearly violating policy, I wouldn't say it's impossible either especially if you out of your way to thumb your nose at the law, e.g. Tweet about what you're doing. (P.S. Wikipedia was mentioned here [18] but not in the sense it was likely anyone would be charged although I think the implication is clear they theoretically could be if in NZ.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Must is not a word to use to princes"

From the article Elizabeth I of England, regarding Elizabeth I's death:

The Queen's health remained fair until the autumn of 1602, when a series of deaths among her friends plunged her into a severe depression. In February 1603, the death of Catherine Carey, Countess of Nottingham, the niece of her cousin and close friend Lady Knollys, came as a particular blow. In March, Elizabeth fell sick and remained in a "settled and unremovable melancholy", and sat motionless on a cushion for hours on end. When Robert Cecil told her that she must go to bed, she snapped: "Must is not a word to use to princes, little man." She died on 24 March 1603 at Richmond Palace, between two and three in the morning. A few hours later, Cecil and the council set their plans in motion and proclaimed James King of England.

What did she mean by "Must is not a word to use to princes"? Elizabeth I was a woman and therefore could not have been a prince. Or is there something I'm not understanding about the English grammar here? JIP | Talk 11:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prince is a subtle term, and significantly different from princess.

Macchiavelli's The Prince covers some of this. A prince is the governor of a principality – to most intents a kingdom, ruled by a monarch, except that it itself owes an allegiance to a greater kingdom or empire. But within that allegiance, a prince is thus a ruling sovereign, and subject to no other authority: certainly not a courtier with an idea of bedtime. There's a literature, like The Prince, of "mirrors for princes" which are "how to succeed in management" books of the medieval period, written by those courtiers who knew how to avoid using impolitic terms like "must".

A princess in contrast is a chattel. A piece of marriageable property, to be traded from her father to her husband, to seal some dynastic bargain. Largely powerless of herself, except from some accidents of fate (such as a lack of brothers). "Prince" has a secondary meaning, which wasn't being used here, as meaning a male princess. If not the direct heir to the kingdom or principality themself, or likely to become so, then they too are relegated to being marriage bargains. Albeit with usually greater status than a princess. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary explains it all, the word "prince" here is used by Liz either as in meaning #1 or meaning #2 of [19] . Probably meaning #1 (generic term for "ruler"). --Lgriot (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per all of the above, in general, the feminine versions of titles of nobility did not automatically confer substantive power on their holders; those titles originally (and unless otherwise clarified) implied only the daughter of or the wife of a substantive title holder, and those women did not get the rights of those titles merely because they were called "princess" or whatever. When a substantive title is to be used, it is often (not exclusively, but often enough) used in the male form for women who hold it. Thus, Elizabeth II, in the context of the Channel Islands is the Duke of Normandy and referred to as "The Queen, our Duke" and not, notably, "Duchess". Anne Boleyn was created the Marquess of Pembroke, and not marchioness. This practice was not universal, but common enough that it indicates that they were thinking about the distinction between a woman who was merely the wife of a ruler vs. a woman who holds actual right to power. --Jayron 32 12:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The queen is also Lord of Mann. Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a distantly related note, I find it funny that the German word for "prince" is "Prinz", but the word for "princess" is "Prinzessin", literally "prince-ess-ess". JIP | Talk 12:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German actually has two different words that both get translated into (two different meanings of) the English word "prince". "Prinz" is a word that means prince in the sense of "a member of a royal house", while "Fürst" gets translated as prince is the sense of "a sovereign monarch". English uses the same word for both senses. --Jayron 32 17:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The version I learned at school was "Little man, little man, must is not a word to use to princes", but with the benefit of Google, I see this is a quote from the 1937 film Fire Over England. The actual quote appears to be: "Must is not a word to be used to princes! Little man, little man, if your late father were here he would never dare utter such a word". Looking at the [Wikiquote page it is unclear who actually recorded the quip; I thought maybe Francis Bacon's Apophthegms, but having read the whole thing, I see that it is not. Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partington, Angela, ed. (1996). "Elizabeth I". The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (Revised Fourth ed.). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. p. 274. ISBN 0198600585. has "Must! Is must a word to be addressed to princes? Little man, little man! thy father, if he had been alive, durst not have used that word", and sources it to Green, J. R. (1874). "Chapter 7". A Short History of the English People., and noted that Tierney, M. A., ed. (1840). Dodd's Church History of England. Vol. 3. p. 72. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help) adds "but thou knowest I must die, and that maketh thee so presumptuous". It's worth noting that Cecil was a little man physically. His father, who would not have durst, was Burghley. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DuncanHill, but any idea where Mr Green might have taken it from? It was nearly three hundred years after the event. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: No - I had a quick look at both the books I mentioned last night before turning in, and neither gave a source as far as I could see. DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for trying. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is ancient, but in case you were still interested, the quotation comes from "A True Relation of what succeeded in the sickness and death of queen Elizabeth" [sic] by Lady Elizabeth Southwell (1584–1631), one of the maids of honour attending her at the time of her death. The original MS. of 1607 was transcribed in modern English in the mid-19th century and subsequently unhappily destroyed in a fire at Stonyhurst. Lady Southwell, who was a Roman Catholic, may have allowed a certain amount of prejudice creep into her account, as well as a desire to tell a striking story, as when she recounts how Elizabeth had visions of herself "her body exceeding lean, and fearful in a light of fire." Danhuser (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to think differently about gendering titles. For example, see who is the current Duke of Lancaster. A Duchess, you see, is merely a woman married to a Duke. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

use of Wikipedia text for commercial gain without attribution

I want to be able to copy Wikipedia text directly into articles on my commercial YouTube website (one that is monetized by YouTube for these articles viewing, etc.), but I don't want to link any attributions to it; I want it to appear to be written by me.

May I do that? I see this done frequently, so it seems like I should be able to, but I just wanted to check first.MichaelPDugas (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelPDugas: No, you cannot. The material is not public domain. Please see WP:COPY EvergreenFir (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, MichaelPDugas, rather than just doing it. One of the purposes of Wikipedia is to make material, as far as possible, available for reuse by anybody, for any purpose, including commercial. But it is a "red line" that the creators of the material should be credited, via attribution. --ColinFine (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]