Talk:Nemo me impune lacessit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Scotland (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon Nemo me impune lacessit is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Comment - this motto is used on the fabric bands used by police to cover their badges while mourning a deceased officer. Probably linked with the large Scots-Irish population in American law enforcement.

I also remember a in a History Class whee the statement "Nemo me impune lacessit" was translated to He who Offends Me Beware.

A question of translation[edit]

I always understood the correct translation of lacessit to be harm, injure or wound rather than the apparently more popular provoke or attack, but it's a long time since I used Latin "in anger" so I don't propose to alter the article, unless I get encouragement here.

A freer, more colloquial ("literary"?) translation that I personally prefer is "Touch me at your peril".

Brent L

Is this entire page a joke? What is all this nonsense about "milking"? I suspect vandalism. Nate —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Having visited Scotland two days ago, I witnessed a local Scottish tour guide translating "Nemo me impune lacessit" as "Wha dare meddle wi' me (?) ". I also later met this translation on a whisky bottle carrying the Black Watch tartan and coat of arms.


A latin phrase popularized from the Edgar Allen Poe story, "The Cask of Amontillado". The phrase is classically translated to mean, "No one attacks me with impunity." The antagonist of the story has performed a great wrong against the protagonist, and the protagonist lures the antagonist into a trap with the promise of a rare vintage of wine.

I agree with 'attack' rather than provoke - it is a more relevant translation and fits with the origin via the attacking Vickings/Danes. It is also the traditional translation.


In actual fact it is based on the highland thistle "No one attacks me with impunity"

Bernie Sweeney (scotland)

in actual fact it means "No one provokes me with impunity" and is the Motto of scotland and dates back to prob the creation of the order of the thistle,

The Order of the Thistle represents the highest honour in Scotland, and it is second only in precedence to the Order of the Garter. The date of the foundation of the Order is not known, although legend has it that it was founded in 809 when King Achaius made an alliance with the Emperor Charlemagne.

As of 1984 it can be found on the side of a £1 scottish coin (sterling)

I understand "lacessit" to be better translated as "assails".... Kennethlaw (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Another vote for assail/attack, and against harm/cut. See -- (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Feminazi-ism, for lack of a better term[edit]


what in the name of the most gracious God-Emperor of Man has the "Recognition of femininity as a major social influence in Scottish culture" got to do with the much argued translation of the word? If it warrants mention then it warrants a seperate article surely, as it moving more into its own story than elaborating on the actual meaning (use) of the motto (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


I may have been premature, but I have removed the 'Stub' tag as I feel that there isn't much more one can add to the article. Thoughts, anyone? (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Scotbadge tn.png[edit]

The image Image:Scotbadge tn.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with free image. Endrick Shellycoat 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Non inultus premor[edit]

The French city of Nancy has a similar motto, Non inultus premor ("I cannot be touched with impunity")

This translation is extremely loose. A more literal translation would be "(There is) no unpunished pressing-upon (me)", with the words in parentheses being implied by the construction. -- (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

--- The translation is fine. "Premor" is just the passive form of "premere" (="to pressure, hassle, pester"). See -- (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

modern coins[edit]

The article states that the motto appears "on coins to this day", but the following cites do not seem to support this. Is it bogus? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Further investigation strongly suggests vandalism. Edit reverted and text removed. Ne-VER mind. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nemo me impune lacessit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Nemo Arms[edit]

The motto's first word, "Nemo", was adopted as the namesake for Nemo Arms, a Montana firearms maker that produced the world's first mass-production .300 Winchester Magnum AR-15 pattern rifle.[1][2]

I looked on the citation and coouldn't find any claim that the name of the company is derived from the phrase. They do post the phrase on the home page, but it's a leap of original research to say that it was the source. Further, it doesn't seem significant - the company isn't even notable. Felsic2 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, Felsic, the motto is printed at the top-right of the front page on their website, why would it be there if it's not related to their name? Moreover, GUNS Magazine made the same link ([1], top item). And as I added, the company is notable, having produced the world's first .300 Win Mag AR, and being featured in multiple third-party sources (ie, the links on their news page). What criteria were you using to decide the firearm manufacturer would not be notable? Herr Gruber (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Having a Wikipedia article is often regarded as proof of notability.
Let's use the source which actually supports the assertion. Since you've pointed out that the AR-15 is chambered for dozens of cartridges, being the first to make one particular combination doesn't seem terribly special. This is the kind of thing that editors on other pages might call "trivia", and insist on justifications for its inclusion. Felsic2 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the guy you're talking about and I don't agree with him on the point about the nickname; I check your edits to see which talk pages I need to reply to (since for some reason I don't get notifications when you do that), saw that diff and didn't revert it because it seemed a fair piece of information to include. I would say for any of those chamberings, if we knew the company that made the first one of that type it would be notable on that basis, especially if we consider the chambering notable in and of itself. For example, we have a whole article on the AR-57, which is notable because it's the first AR to be chambered for the FN 5.7mm PDW round. There's dozens of different ways to propel a ship, too, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue Turbinia isn't notable for being the first ship with a turbine.
I'd equally point out that the company not having a Wikipedia article doesn't mean it isn't notable (particularly given WP's firearms articles are generally rather a mess); for example, VLTOR Weapon Systems, a major high-end supplier of aftermarket accessories (effectively the Rolls Royce of AR bits), doesn't have a page either (even though one particular part of their accessory rail systems does), but given the company manufacturers stocks for US Army M32 grenade launchers, is working on a highly anticipated project to resurrect Donaus & Dixon's legendary Bren Ten pistol and is one of only a few Western companies to manufacture Russian PKM machine gun receivers, it's certainly notable. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It still seems awfully trivial. But if you're OK with including all available information in articles then that's fine with me. Felsic2 (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I've come to realize that you're not OK with including all available information in articlers. So I'm going to renew my objection to this entry unless some 3rd-party source can be found which discusses it. At the present, it's based on original research and a single primary source. Felsic2 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
As noted, Guns Magazine made the same conclusion and can be added as a third-party source if need be, and there's nothing wrong with a primary source for simply asserting something is true.
Also, could you please stop constantly trying to trip people up while discussing things with them? I never said I wanted to "include all available information" (in fact I've repeatedly argued for excluding information), and that's a fairly obvious strawman version of my position. The "gotcha!" style of debate might seem clever, but it doesn't actually ever work since even if you manage to make your opponent adopt two contradictory positions, that says nothing about which one is the correct one, only that one of them can't be. Even if you pull it off, all you prove is that you're a slightly smarter debater than your opponent. In debates (outside of politics where sadly the "gotcha!" style is more or less mandatory) we have a thing called the principle of charity, which is a key part of ever achieving any level of meaningful discussion.
(To forestall the obvious "but you did X!" reply (tu quoque, btw, a subset of the ad hominem fallacy, ie a type of personal attack), the principle of charity does not require you to assume your opponent understands a particular subject regardless of all evidence to the contrary, only that they are a reasonable person who is not being intellectually dishonest). Herr Gruber (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If you've got a secondary source that actually says they named the company for this then add it as a citation. Right now, it just reads as commercial cruft. Felsic2 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that if you google their name what shows up as the name of their website is "Nemo Arms | Nemo me impune lacessit" is a pretty good proof by itself, and you don't need a secondary source to assert that. It's a simple fact, they're a notable company, hence, inclusion. If we're splitting hairs, the fact that a notable company plasters this phrase all over their website as a slogan and uses the first word as their name is fine too. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact is that there's no consensus for this material. Felsic2 (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
In a debate consisting of two people, so your view holds no more weight than mine. Given that it was here already, is sourced, and is part of a list of trivia, I don't see why you're making such a big deal of it. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The same could be said of you, who followed me here and who can't find a single secondary source for this bit of commcercial fluff. Felsic2 (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I gave you a secondary source listed on the company's news page that could be used if need be, you ignored it. Also, this isn't about me. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Lexicon Tetraglotton[edit]

The Lexicon Tetraglotton (1660) refers to this motto in relation to the Knights of the Thistle.

How do we account for this ?

Eyeze (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The Lexicon Tetraglotton predates the 1687 establishment of the present Knights of the Thistle.

Eyeze (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Good find. As you say, it "predates the 1687 establishment of the present Knights of the Thistle." But according to the WP article Order of the Thistle, a predecessor to the present order was established no later than the reign of James III, 1460 to 1488. So it seems logical that the motto was used by that prior order, though our article doens't have that much detail. Felsic2 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help other researchers if this new information was incorporated into this article.

The Knights of the Thistle who possibly were the Knights of Cardone of the House of Bourbon may have been the prior order to the present Order of the Thistle.

Eyeze (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

An old book may not be a good source for facts but it's a good source for what it contains. With attribution, the hurdles are lowered. So we could probably say something in the Order of the Thistle article like, "The Lexicon Tetraglotton, published 1660, has an entry for 'Knights of the Thistle in the House of Bourbon'." How does that look? Felsic2 (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

My thought is that the Lexicon Tetraglotton offers information that will help our understanding of the origin of both the Order of the Thistle and the motto "Nemo me impune lacessit". Both pages on Wikipedia would benefit from updates referring to what the Lexicon Tetraglotton contains. I have been finding information that ties the Knights of Cardone to the Siege of Rhodes in 1480. The collaborative power of Wikipedia has potential to pull together this splintered history into a new understanding of the origin of this classic motto.

Eyeze (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should try to interpret the text ourselves. If you're an historian, then write up your findings and once they're published we can refer to them. FWIW, Cavalieri del cardone appears to be Old Italian. It's an interesting issue to investigate, but any fresh conclusions that you or I would make would violate Wikipedia's prohibition on original research, WP:NOR. This isn't the place to create new understandings, unfortunately. BUt again, simply stating that there is an entry for the order would not be original research. Felsic2 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
In case it's not clear, the Lexicon Tetraglotton is simply a four language dictionary.[2] It's not four different orders. The entry just gives the name of the order in English, French, Italian, and Spanish. In the same way, this article in Italian is about the order as well: Ordine del Cardo. What's interesting isn't the name in Italian, it's the connection to the House of Bourbon. Felsic2 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I have created Draft:Knights of Cardone. Perhaps other editors will be able to add content. Eyeze (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a tricky issue, but it looks like you've stayed within the boundaries. Thanks for writing that. I made a few minor edits. Felsic2 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)