Talk:Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Short title and page name[edit]

I made this edit, which was reverted. This creates an inconsistency, in that the definite article does not appear in the page name.

Every page of the Act, whether as enacted or currently in force, shows at the top of the page the heading "Crime and Disorder Act 1998", which is also shown in the title bar of most web browsers. This has no definite article; that is to say, it does not read "The Crime and Disorder Act 1998" - the word "the" is absent. The relevant section of the Act (both as enacted and currently in force) states

(1) This Act may be cited as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

My contention is that if the definite article were part of the short title, it would be capitalised in the clause above, and would also appear in the page headings. If the definite article really is part of the short title, this page should be moved; but as can be seen by examining any of the page's main categories (Category:Anti-social behaviour, Category:Court orders, Category:Criminal law of the United Kingdom, Category:Hate crime, Category:Sex laws or Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1998) it is by no means atypical: we simply don't include the definite article in page names for UK Acts of Parliament. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence in favour of that proposition is wafer thin and there is some evidence to the contrary. I have had this discussion before. I am in the process of assembling the evidence at v:Short titles, which is presently incomplete. This has also been discussed, in particular, on the talk pages of users Andrew Gwilliam and Chrism. As to capitalization, you might like to read a report of Duke of Devonshire v O'Connor which said according to A First Book of English Law said punctuation isn't part of an Act. Maybe capitalization is the same. If full stops are not part of an Act of Parliament, how can capital letters be part of it? The column "short title" in Schedules of repeals does not, as far as I am aware, discriminate on the basis of capitalization. This kind of thing is not at all obvious. The headers clearly prove nothing. They contain no references to short titles or citation. The inferences you are drawing are OR. Nor have we established any precedent for not using the definite article here on Wikipedia (except in the page name). Many of our pages do use it (except in the page name). Nor do we have to move this page if the page name is not the real name. Our policy on article titles says the exact opposite. It says the page name need not appear in the text of the article, in bold text or otherwise. James500 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that a page written entirely by yourself and hosted on another project has any relevance to practices here. It also seems that both Andrew Gwilliam (talk · contribs) and Chrism (talk · contribs) disagreed with you, and although it's not clear what Eddaido (talk · contribs)'s position was, nobody actually agreed with you. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page on wikiversity is intended as a summary of the relevant reliable sources so that I do not have to keep repeating myself to people who do not know what they are talking about. Your opinions are a clear case of WP:CIR. If you had done any real research, you would have realised that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. What two other users, chosen at random, think is beside the point because they are not reliable sources. Schedule 11 of the Courts Act 1971 on the other hand, to give a single example, is. And my recollection is that Andrew Gwilliam agreed that there was no conclusive proof. The bottom line is that this is an unsettled question that is not likely to be settled until someone produces a very compelling source which is not likely to happen because I and others have already looked. And as regards punctuation, MOSLAW says that where there is a conflict between primary and secondary sources on a proposition of law, we follow the primary sources. That guideline follows the normal hierachy of legal authority. And right now, the only case law on offer is the decision I mentioned. I also don't see the point of selectively notifying a handful of editors. James500 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC) If you want some case law, try the case quoted here, though it is obiter ("it is provided that the Act may be cited by the short title of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906"). James500 (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC) The report is here: p 114 and see also p 128 (This is not the case with the short title, which in this instance is "The Trade Disputes Act, 1906." That is a title given...). James500 (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC) And in that case the corresponding provision in section 5(1) of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 was practically identical to section 121(1) of this Act. James500 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about punctuation. I'm talking about which words constitute the short title for the Act, for which the primary source is surely the text of the Act itself. The three sources that you provide are not concerned with deciding whether the definite article is part of the short title or not; they are discussing how the short title and the long title relate to one another, and the compatibility between the short title and the meaning of the Act.
They were not "two other users, chosen at random". They were two other users that you had named yourself. I also wasn't "selectively notifying a handful of editors": immediately after raising this thread - which did not name any individuals (other than myself) until you replied to it - my very next action was to notify the two WikiProjects whose banners appear at the top of this page: Politics of the United Kingdom and Law (if you want me to be less selective, I could perhaps notify WP:VPP). Only later did I notify any specific individuals: one directly, three by mentioning them in my second post above. As I say, two of those you had already named; the third was a person who had responded to one of your posts on the talk page of one of the two already mentioned. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The inferences that you are attempting to draw from the text of the Act are original research. We do not know what the non-capitalisation of the definite article means, if, indeed, it means anything at all. "Punctuation" which is apparently not part of an Act, might include capitalisation. And for the avoidance of doubt the header on the website is not part of the Act. The closest thing to the authentic text that we can get are Queen's Printer copies. What you need is a reliable source that says, in express words, "the definite article is not part of the short title" or something unambiguously to that effect, and is not contradicted by other reliable sources. At the moment, you don't have that. The sources that I cited are relevant in so far as the seem to indicate that it is. I agree that they are not conclusive. James500 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC) In fact, what you really need is a statute or a binding precedent that deals directly with this point. As far as I am aware, there isn't one. I think the ultimate outcome of any discussion is going to be "we don't know what the answer is, so don't edit war over this". James500 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly stated in paragraph 683 of Volume 96 of Halsbury's Laws (2012 edition) that punctuation is part of an Act, and moreover forms one of its unamendable descriptive components. Duke of Devonshire v O'Connor (1890) 24 QBD 468 is authority for the erroneous proposition that punctuation marks were never entered on the Parliamentary Roll. Whilst some Acts were engrossed on the Roll without punctuation marks, many did in fact include them (see, for example, R v Lynch [1903] 1 KB 444 and R v Casement (1917) 86 LJKB (NS) 467). The present position is quite simply stated in section 19(1) Interpretation Act 1978 from which it follows that the interpreter is by statute required to treat the published version of an Act, complete with punctuation, as authoritative. There is therefore no basis on which the definite article can be imputed into an Act's short title. I would suggest the reinstatement of Redrose's correct change. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, punctuation can't include capitalisation by any accepted meaning of the word. Punctuation refers specifically tothe use of marks/symbols not belonging to the alphabet used to indicate meaning and intonation not conveyed solely by the words themselves. - Chrism would like to hear from you 20:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lamberhurst, section 19(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978 says no such thing. It applies only where one Act cites another Act by year, statute, session or chapter, or a section or other portion of an Act by number or letter. Citation by short title is not mentioned at all. Halsbury's Laws of England is only the personal opinion of Francis Bennion and does not automatically trump other sources (such as O. Hood Phillips). I can't comment on Lynch or Casement without looking at them, though it is obvious that the short title of the Act was not an issue in Casement. Even if capitalisation is part of an Act, we still don't know what, if anything, it means in this particular case. The two sources you have offered don't say anything about that. O. Hood Phillips (A First Book of English Law, 4th ed, p 100) does seem to clearly say the definite article is part of the short title, not that that is conclusive either. James500 (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC) It also seems obvious to me that if the definite article was not part of the short title, then section 121(1) would not make grammatical sense (ie if that was the case, the word should be omitted from the sentence altogether). Other users may not agree, but might perhaps accept that the fact I hold such an opinion calls into questions their own personal opinions about what capitalisation normally means, and that they should look for unambiguous sources instead of insisting that the meaning of ambiguous sources is obvious. James500 (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are mixing two separate issues. The issue of the short title of an Act is quite different from the grammatical use of that short title in a sentence referring to the Act. Hence, with regard to a sentence which reads "The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is an Act...", the capitalised "The" marks the start of the sentence and does not denote the Act's title. The point of section 19(1) is that, as citation of another Act necessarily means citation using the short title as provided for in that Act (e.g. section 121(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act), the short title is determinative of citation. O. Hood Phillips, out-of-print since the 1970s and, as its name suggests, is an introductory guide, does not help here. Halsbury's is a WP:RELIABLE source and I have little doubt that other specialist works in the field would back it up. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is largely manifest nonsense. Section 19(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978 has nothing to do with short titles. The words "short title" do not appear anywhere in that section, nor does it contain anything that could be construed as a reference to short titles. Citation of another Act does not necessarily mean citation using the short title. It is possible to cite this Act as "1998 c 37" without reference to its short title. Halsbury's Laws does not say that the definite article is part of the short title so there is nothing to back up. You have not understood what I said about the grammatical sense. What I said was that if the definite article was not part pf the short title, section 121(1) should read "This Act may be cited as Crime and Disorder Act 1998." otherwise the words "cited as" would make no sense. The age of O. Hood Phillips is not an issue unless there are relevant cases decided, or enactments passed, since 1960. None have been offered. He was certainly aware of the decision in Casement. He cites it on five different pages, sometimes at length. James500 (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can guess, based on previous discussion, on the topic, I agree with Lamberhurst, Redrose64 and (based on his edit) Doctorbuk, amongst others. I'd suggest there's a reasonable body in favour, and just one against, and I'm editing in line with that. - Chrism would like to hear from you 20:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there was a local consensus (not clear because very few people have commented on the little evidence that there is, and some of the arguments advanced are clearly nonsense (consensus is not a vote)) it is clearly not enough to overide the main consensus established at WP:NOR and whichever policy or guideline forbids cherrypicking. James500 (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crime_and_Disorder_Act_1998&oldid=1206824811"