Talk:Kangaroo court/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Kangaroo court. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

(Comment)

this pic would be interesting on the article: File:I Vote to Shoot the Messenger.jpg Borisblue 03:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Mock" court meaning

I am somewhat confused by the usage of the word "mock" in the definition. When I think "mock court" I think of a mock trial, usually done at law schools and colleges that are basically 'practice' trials for the participants. However, I have always been under the impression that a kangaroo court was a term for a real court that is biased/rigged/etc...I can see what they mean by the definition by reading the article, so isn't using the word "mock" in the definition a bit confusing? Or can someone correct me on this if I'm misunderstanding this concept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.0.201 (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

They fail to mention

this article would be useful if the examples of the witchunt of the 80's known as the satanic panic were included in this writing. there were many people who were pushed into the court system and found guilty with absolutely no evidence, during this moral panic that cost a lot of people time and money. There is plenty of references on this, most notably, to be found within the book 'Satanic Panic' written by Jeffery S. Victor, which covers every aspect of this dark time in american history.

Of course some of the christian writers here at wiki would protest, as it was an embarrassment on chrsitianity that so many people were falsely accused and convicted, later to have their trials overturned on lack of any credible evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.42.81 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian Gold Rush

The section about usage deriving from anti-Australianism during the 'Gold Rush' is too vague. I assume they mean the Californian Gold Rush, but as Australia also had a Gold Rush which also involved claim jumping trials, it reads confusingly (and US centric) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.59.10 (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations sought for alleged kangaroo courts

I have commented out the following:

Examples of alleged kangaroo courts amounting to 'judicial lynching' include the Kansas evolution hearings and the Romanian military court which sentenced Nicolae Ceauşescu to death.{{fact}}

The absence of citations since requested over a month ago means that these assertions of alleged kangaroo trials cannot be assured to meet the policies of Verifiability and No original research--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How about looking obvious places, perhaps for example kansas evolution hearings? As for the others, this place can get verification-happy instead of using common sense. — Dunc|☺ 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see that the vandalism accusation in User:Duncharris's edit is merited when I had raised the issue here and he had not discussed on talk page before making the edit with inappropriate commentary thereby violating WP:NPA. Furthermore, requesting of citations does not mean the requesting editor has to go searching for them - read Wikipedia:Citing sources which states: "This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." I had allowed plenty of time for citation of sources. The cite given at the end of the second para for the article on the Kansas evolution hearings does not mention the word "kangaroo". I am not going to search the other sources. I suggest the labelling may well be a POV edit by a wikipedian until citation proved otherwise. I am not interested in editing the hearings article and hence have not asked for citations there but it applies also.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This must be deliberate trolling. Are you seriously saying that you're too stupid or lazy to go look at Kansas evolution hearings? — Dunc|☺ 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No I am not trolling, and I find the suggestion offensive. You are being uncivil and too lazy to even read my comment properly. You have also failed to note that I raised the matter over 1 month ago with no response. I have, as stated above, looked at the hearings article; I also looked at the first citation provided. It did not mention kangaroo courts even though it is a citation against a paragraph with a kangaroo court assertion - all other refs were at the end of the article and not clearly labelled as suggesting "kangaroo court" (nor need they be). I think the reference to kangaroo courts in the Kansas hearings article is compromised but I am not going to go there - not my country, any contribution I would make would be limited. WP:Cite does not require me to look for references, it requires any editor who wants to keep the assertion in there to find a ref. Not a matter of being verification happy, but seeking verification in this instance seems to me appropriate.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to JoshuaZ for the citation. I note in passing Dunchariss's highly inappropriate use of the rollback button, behaviour also commented also by another editor on his talk page. His comments here do not justify the use of the roll back.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of etymology of the term, I've come across the term "kangaroo hunting license" as slang for a sentence of transportation to Australia in early 19th century English court cases. A possible derivation for kangaroo court would be a court that handed out sentences of transportation upon the most perfunctory of trials - certainly a common occurrence in Britain at that date (circa 1820). A more likely chain to the California Gold Fields would be Irish immigrants.

17:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msherwoodpike (talk • contribs)

Collective Noun

In Australia here we say a troop of kangaroos, not a court of kangaroos. Kransky 12:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuremburg trials under "Mock Justice"

I removed the following text (bolded portion) from the article, seeing as it is a highly emotionally and politically charged statement made with no citation, as well as being far too vague. —Clement Cherlin 12:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Two other example are Roland Freisler's "processes" against the enemies of the National-Socialist regime, and the Nuremburg trials convicting the enemies of Liberal democracy.

Vandalism in the Mock Justice section

I'm not particularly familiar with the wiki system. Someone vandalized the article under the header "Mock Justice" - I can't tell if there originally was a section with that name, or if it was added by the vandal. It'd be helpful if someone would restore the article. 74.75.233.150 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Usage is Trivia in disguise?

It seems the "Usage" section is just a Trivia section in disguise? Should it be labelled with the "avoid trivia" tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.240.130 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unverified claim in "Mock justice" section

The paragraph "Mock trials have been used by governments to suppress its citizens. For example, Singaporean politicians have been known to use libel suits to silence opposition politicians." has no supporting reference and is unverified. I will therefore remove it.61.8.207.59 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the 'pop culture' section

Because it was depressingly irrelevant. Poorly chosen examples, too. A Tool song and the movie Pink Flamingos?? Relevance, anyone? Hell, 'kangaroo court' is itself a 'pop culture' concept. One could likely cite several thousand examples of its use in pop culture. Oh, and op. cit. all the other arguments against trivia / pop culture sections in general.Eaglizard (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary example - "Camp Justice", Guantanamo?

The show trials being staged there meet most of the criteria. The Nazi and Stalinist examples given are rather dated. Fourtildas (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The New Orleans Times-Picayune recorded an early use of "kangaroo court" in 1841 by another newspaper to describe the lynch-law justice applied to blacks in that state: "DON'T COMPREHEND -- The Concordia [Louisiana] Intelligencer says, 'several loafers were lynched in Natchez last week upon various charges instituted by the Kangaroo court. The times grow warm; we can see another storm coming, not unlike that which prevailed in the days of the Morrell excitement. In Natchez, as in New Orleans, they are driving away all of the free negroes.' What is a Kangaroo court, neighbor?" -- Times-Picayune, 1841-08-24

This shows that the expression pre-dates the California Gold Rush and likely did not arise in Australia. 66.189.48.23 (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Saddam was in fact a murderer

It is well known worldwide that Saddam was a murderer. Whether or not his trial was a Kangaroo court is pretty irrelevant and is a lame example to use in this article. Clearly it is meant to bad mouth the USA (who allows Wikipedia to exist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.114.186 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Since the article has survived an AfD, I will remove all unsourced material and ask that editors who wish to re-insert information do so using reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We have the Wikipedia:Citation needed tag for a reason. Any statement without a source is not necessarily original research. Indeed, a line such as:

"The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance..."

is not OR, it's simply an elaboration upon the definition of a "kangaroo court"; a citation is not really possible. If you disagree with a definition, change it, but it's not justified to delete under these circumstances. On the other hand, the line:

"Joseph Stalin's Show Trials ... in the context of the Great Purge."

is sourced, via the wikilink to Great Purge, which details:

"It is now known that the confessions were given only after great psychological pressure and torture had been applied to the defendants..."

Finally, with regards to some of the factual claims for which a source would be desirable, consider that if we deleted every single statment from Wikipedia that lacked a source, there wouldn't be much left. Many of the statements were added in good faith, there is some evidence to suggest they are true, and no evidence presented that they are false or POV. I'm reverting your blanking. 72.226.46.8 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims need to be sourced, per WP:RS. It may be that you think a kangaroo court is one where decisions are determined in advance, but perhaps it is one where procedures are so erratic that no one can determine the results in advance. Also, providing an example that meets your criterion, but is not explicitly labelled a "kangaroo court" violates synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Apparently "kangaroo court is a well-defined term with multiple treatments in reliable sources. You need to use these to expand the article. TFD (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you (User:TFD) are responding to the 2 quoted instances of deleted material, but those were examples only; my point is with respect to all of the content deleted by yourself and User:Boson. Regarding to the issue here, WP:RS states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" (emphasis mine). Following your criteria, the article would contain nothing that you couldn't find with a Merriam-Webster dictionary and a Google text search for "kangaroo court" (with quotes). As an encyclopedia, it is our job to summarize, to mention instances of conflicting definitions if they are well-established, and to include sources that don't necessarily include certain words verbatim (note that synthesis is “a conclusion not explicitly stated“ not something “not explicitly labelled”), provided that we do it in an objective manner, and that we don't reach our own factual conclusions. In reverting your deletions, I'll do my best to include sources for any new claims that I make and delete false or suspect claims lacking sources, but I do believe it is acceptable to retain unsourced material that was added in good faith and appears to be true, adding Wikipedia:Citation needed where appropriate. We can aspire to the ideal of a fully sourced encyclopedia without ruthlessly blanking 90% of the current content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.46.8 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that is synthesis, and requires editors to make judgments about what to include, which would lead to a POV article. TFD (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that editors not make judgments about what to include? Editors must constantly make judgments as to notability, reliability, etc. It is the responsibility of an editor to avoid POV when making such judgments, and failing that, the responsibility of the community to use the established process to correct such POV. If you find POV statements in my rewrite/unrevert, then remove them, certainly. However, if you find unsourced statements that appear to be made in good faith, then mark them as Wikipedia:Citation needed or better: do some research, refute them, and add your refutations to the article itself, as a good encyclopedia article should dispel popular misconceptions.72.226.46.8 (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced assertions may be removed. And judgment does not mean that we can publish our own original research. Find a book about kangaroo courts and use it as a guide for what fits the criteria. TFD (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If your only 2 options are "delete it all" and "have a source for every statement", you'll have to remove 90% of Wikipedia, and not for the better, in my opinion. If you're going to be that inflexable on this article, then we'll have to take it into mediation. Good faith edits that don't have a clear POV, OR, counterfactual, or other disqualifying aspect should be given some respect. If you think it's factually incorrect, then remove it, but if we're going to remove every sentence without a cite tag, we don't need human editors, we could write a bot to do the job. If you're going to be flexable and reasonable, then lets suspend this until I actually post a rewrite that you can comment on. If you're going to be pendantic, then you've got another 90% of Wikipedia to start deleting, and I don't think further discussion will put us in agreement anyway. Nothing personal, I see that you intentions are to produce the best Wikipedia too, but I certainly disagree with your methods.

72.226.46.8 (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the policy. Fortunately there are sources for most subjects. TFD (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible Origin

R v Macarthur 1808 NSWSC1, the trial which sparked the Rum Rebellion, is believed by some to be the origin of the term kangaroo court. Any supporting citation would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvdveer (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This article does not take this issue seriously

Kangaroo courts are more important than some baseball reference. Getting a fair trial is a basic human right but instead, this article talks about baseball. I guess an authoritarian regime must edit this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehotshotpilot (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

None of the legal abuse/misconduct articles are particularly good. I don't feel like I'm qualified to write them and I'm hoping someone will take an interest in the subject matter and bring them up to code. Personally, I feel like the baseball reference is fine. If a term is used as slang in other ways, it's our duty to include the additional uses in the article. Bali88 (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Pol Pot

It seems a little strange to me that the trial against Pol Pot has been such an important kangaroo court that it must be noted in the introduction... 95.91.238.150 (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I suggest its removal from the lede. Walkinxyz (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Australian Origin

Stating "often erroneously believed to have its origin from Australia's courts" seems a little strong here, and doesn't seem to follow Wikipedia's approach of "documenting the dispute". Those who support an Australian origin do have one piece of evidence - they can cite the specific legal case which they claim was the original "kangaroo court", this being R v MacArthur 1808 NSWSC1, the court case which prompted the Rum Rebellion. Those arguing against an Australian origin do not have a specific court case they can point to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.23.127.25 (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)