Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 21

Photo info

An image we currently use has a contradiction. While the title says "delivers medical supplies to Ghana", the file info says that the delivery took place "in Niamey, Niger". This comes from the source itself ("Air Forces Africa delivers medical supplies to Ghana", "to be delivered to the Government of Ghana", yet they unload "in Niamey, Niger"). Which one it is actually? Brandmeister^talk 07:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it could be both. Perhaps Niamey (which is in the part of Niger closest to Ghana) was the nearest suitable airport, and the shipment was then transported by road (most directly through Burkina Fasso) to (northern?) Nigeria where it was needed. Various possible circumstances could be envisioned (airport capacities, locations and closures, differing road qualities, general topography, areas of insurgency, etc.) which might make this a plausible procedure. Since the source (which is presumably reliable) says what it says, I don't think we can disregard it. It would be nice, of course, to obtain further details surrounding the circumstances of the shipment.

As an aside, I note that the source additionally says "to be delivered to the Government of Ghana in support [of, sic] a global response the COVID-19 pandemic." This doesn't necessarily mean the supplies were specific to COVID-19 treatment, but health services in Africa are generally under chronic strain, which the pandemic has exacerbated, so medical supplies of any nature would ease the general situation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.183 (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The story of which the image is one snapshot is described here in detail. While not explicit about the mode of transportation from Niamey to Accra, the text suggests (to me) that this was by C-130J Super Hercules aircraft. The runway of Kotoka International Airport is more than long enough (3,403 m) for landing a C-17 Globemaster (1,067 m with maximum payload), but perhaps the weight was a problem.  --Lambiam 10:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Wherever the plane landed, the supplies ended up with representatives of Ghana. The use of the country name here is in the governmental sense, not the physical location sense. --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"He was the future once"

Why did David Cameron say the quote "He was the future once" (referring to at-the-time British Prime Minister Tony Blair? Does this quote have any special meaning or refer to anything?

Thanks for your help, Heyoostorm (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Heyoostorm, I think this is when the quote was first said. Full quote: ‘I want to talk about the future. He was the future once’. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finding me the full quote, Eddie891 (talk). Is it known why he decided to say it to Tony Blair? Was there a deeper meaning? Heyoostorm (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At the time of this debate, in the 2005 general election, Labour was re-elected but with a significantly reduced majority and there was much speculation about Blair's resignation as he had already said that he wouldn't serve a full term. See Premiership of Tony Blair#Resignation as Labour Party leader and Prime_Minister. Perhaps Cameron was playing on Blair's reputation as a reformer who had little regard for tradition. Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it just saying that at one time Blair was thought of as someone who would lead the country forward into better times, but that at the time of writing people had become less supportive of him. --Khajidha (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Once someone who was going to achieve great things, now a lame duck. See What now for Blair? (BBC, May 2015) Alansplodge (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Fabian Ware img

Can anyone identify the page number of an image in this book that clearly shows Fabian Ware? He should be in several of them as he accompanied the king on this pilgrimage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hathi Trust link is not viewable outside the USA. This Gutenberg link should be accessible. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Using that link, the picture captioned "Forceville" looks like the clearest. But isn't that original research? Won't Wikipedia require a caption or text indication for a properly sourced identification? Eddie891, you might reach out to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to ask if they can confirm, since they have many images from this set on their website. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Late ancient Pagan/Hellenistic writer (poet) in, I think, Alexandra?

One who lamented the introduction of Christianity in then late ancient Egypt, talking about how the old traditions started to be disrespected or disappear as Christianity was introduced/imposed. Just can't remember the name of this writer/poet? Perhpas wrote criticism related to the burning of the library or the Platonic academy there. Help would be appreciated. Thanks. PPEMES (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Christianity in Egypt#History says: "With the Edict of Milan in 313, Constantine I ended the persecution of Christians. Over the course of the 4th century, paganism was suppressed and lost its following, as the poet Palladius bitterly noted". The wikilink for Palladius goes to Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus Palladius who apparently only wrote about agriculture, so maybe it was another Palladius? Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not Palladius, but Palladas. DuncanHill (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been looking into Palladas, but not sure. Does anybody know any quote by him, possibly in his poetry, where he laments how the old mores are becoming deprecated? PPEMES (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

From the external links on the Greek Anthology page, you can browse through all Palladas’s epigrams (the anthology has five volumes and his are not conveniently grouped together, so you’ll have to look at them all). Here’s one that is along the lines of old mores changing (from vol 3):

On a Statue of Heracles: I marvelled seeing at the cross-roads Jove's brazen son, once constantly invoked, now cast aside, and in wrath I said : " Averter of woes, offspring of three nights, thou, who never didst suffer defeat, art to-day laid low." But at night the god stood by my bed smiling, and said : " Even though I am a god I have learnt to serve the times." 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry. That's also not what I am looking for. It was more distinct than that, and more poetic. I guess I should give up. Anyway. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What was the population, area and GDP of the European Communities in 1986, with exception to Spain and Portugal?

So uh, this is a specific question... but nonetheless. I've been slowly turning 1986 enlargement of the European Communities from a stub into, well, a proper encyclopedia article and I'm trying at the moment to verify data that an IP user put into the "Impacts" table there. That includes a load of figures for the population, area and GDP of the European Communities immediately prior to the accessions, but I can't verify those anywhere. Eurostat does publish a relevant dataset for population, and whilst it doesn't add them up for only the EC10, I could do that myself easily - but it doesn't show area or GDP, and I'm thinking the numbers currently in the table must have come from somewhere. Any advice would be gratefully received! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I don't know for sure, but this might be included in the CIA Factbook for the relevant year. Someone at WP:RX might be able to look it up for you. RudolfRed (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Good shout, thanks! I'd not thought of that. I just took a look in the 1985 book, though, and there's no Community-wide figures like that unfortunately though; I suppose it might be manually added figures again, but I'm not sure at what point that passes from WP:CALC to WP:OR when you're adding the entire Community's figures together like that. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That seems like just the sort of thing WP:CALC can enable, avoiding over-caution about OR. Your source gives figures for each of the countries and a suitable encyclopedic presentation of the topic at hand involves a table that summarises those figures by giving their total. Sounds like something we would benefit from, and certainly an improvement on the unsourced stats there at the moment. Beorhtwulf (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

May 22

Dardanelles during Byzantine Empire

Did cities along the Dardanelles compete with Constantinople during the Byzantine Empire, both during the time the empire controlled the region and also during the latter years when it was not a part of the empire and conquered by the Ottomans and others. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Çanakkale was built in 1462 by the Turks, nine years after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Gelibolu was captured by Venice in 1204 and was squabbled over by various powers until captured by the Ottomans in 1354. Lâpseki is an ancient settlement which was captured by the Venetians in 1359, [1] but I can't find a date when it fell to the Ottomans. Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

At its peak, Constantinople was one of the largest cities in the world; during the early middle ages and high middle ages it was, undoubtedly, the largest city in the European world, nothing really compared. The population was over 500,000 people through most of the height of the Byzantine period; whatever settlements were on the Dardanelles you note maxed out at maybe a few tens of thousands. The population collapsed during the late middle ages to 1/10th of the peak, but such a collapse was not limited to Constantinople, it was across Europe; population numbers, and especially in urban areas, where city populations in all urban centers fell off a cliff. The Ottomans turned the city around by the early modern period (17th century) where the population rebounded to peak Byzantine numbers. Even today, at 15 million people, Istanbul is bigger than any other city in Europe, and at least 3x bigger than any other city in Turkey. --Jayron32 12:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Mead “earliest sign of civilization” anecdote?

So I’ve been seeing this anecdote floating around the web the last few days and I’m trying to find its origin and whether it’s real. Basically, Margaret Mead was supposedly asked what the first sign of human civilization was, and responded that it was a healed femur, because it required the development of compassion. I did some rudimentary searching and couldn’t find an authoritative source. A few feelgood articles by people that aren’t anthropologists or biographers of Mead, and a bunch of religious websites. I did find a couple commencement addresses where someone related it in a speech, one in 1996 and one in 2000, but that’s as close as I could get. Snopes doesn’t have an article, though I’d expect as much traction as the story is now getting one should be forthcoming. Anyone able to verify or disprove this? 199.66.69.67 (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Was the 1996 address by an Angie DeWeese? fiveby(zero) 17:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the 1996 account came from a commencement address at Purdue University. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You saw Paul Brand Fearfully and wonderfully made, and [2]? fiveby(zero) 17:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere of an archaeological/palaeontological case of advanced Hypervitaminosis A being interpreted as early evidence of compassion - the subject having apparently been fed liver for a protracted period when unable to fend for themself. Perhaps in one of Jared Diamond's books, something like that. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Felony murder charge after someone intentionally kills themselves?

Is anyone aware of any specific cases in any US jurisdiction where someone was charged with felony murder resulting from a co-felon intentionally killing themselves? The obvious example would be people who assisted a suicide bomber who whether by intent or good fortune only kills themselves but cases like that are rare enough that I don't think it's ever happened in the US. (To be clear, I'm excluding cases where someone accidental kills themselves e.g. a bomb maker screws up and blows themselves up.) But you could get other examples e.g. as part of an insurance fraud scheme or the person doesn't want to go to prison or realises they hurt the child of someone who will seek violent retribution.

What about cases where a victim intentionally killed themselves? I'm excluding cases where someone wanting to kill themselves is a major part of the case e.g. someone terminally ill or someone depressed taking their own life. Instead I'm thinking of cases where it mostly or only arose after the felony such as where someone held captive or a rape victim kills themselves, and the person or people involved in holding them captive or the rape are the ones charged.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm aware an accidental death e.g. by heart attack can result in a felony murder charge in some jurisdictions [3] (heart attack is probably not the best example as some would argue it's a predictable outcome but my understanding is even a fairly unpredictable accidental death can result in a felony murder charge), as can a co-felon being killed by the police [4] [5] as can providing the drugs resulting in an accidental drug overdose [6] [7]. And some jurisdictions e.g. Florida have a law which says "When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate"[8].

All this leads me to believe at least the victim, and maybe the co-felon example, must have arisen before at least as a case which was rejected by the courts. But I couldn't find anything except [9] [10],[11] I'm restriction it to the US mostly because they still have felony murder, some parts seem to apply it expansively, yet they also doesn't generally criminalise suicide anymore and are mostly common law jurisdictions with somewhat respected legal system.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• You may be thinking of the death of Conrad Roy. Blythwood (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No, the Felony murder rule is entirely distinct from murder itself being a felony. Under the felony murder rule, if two people are commiting a felony, and one causes a death, then the other one can be charged with murder even if he did not intend the death himself. In the US (perhaps elsewhere?) this is sometimes taken to the extreme that if two people are comitting a felony, and if in the course of their response the police kill one of them, the other can be charged for the murder of his accomplice. What Nil Einne is asking for is if there has ever been such a case but where one of the perpatrators commited suicide (perhaps in response to being surrounded by the police) and his accomplice was charged under this rule. -- ToE 21:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding that highly specific fact pattern, I believe State ex rel. Painter v. Zakaib, 411 S.E.2d 25 (W. Va. 1991), is relevant. In it, a botched burglary/kidnapping attempt led to one of the three juveniles being captured by the victim, with the other two attempting to rescue the third. The burglary/kidnapping would undoubtedly be a violent felony eligible for the felony murder rule under typical circumstances, and the rescue would probably be as well. When that rescue attempt failed, the two found themselves pursued by police. When the police pulled them over, one of the two committed suicide. The person who had initially been captured was charged with the murder of the person who committed suicide under the felony murder rule. The court held that in this case, the charge couldn't stand. I don't know, but would be interested to find out, what became of the other accomplice (the one that was in the car). The 7th Circuit cited this case obliquely when discussing felony murder in the context of an accidental accomplice death. United States v. Martinez, 16 F.3d 202 (7th Cir. 1994). I believe the broader question is answered more in the details of how felony murder statutes are written and function in specific jurisdictions, such as whether there is a causal linkage requirement (most jurisdictions seem to have this). See Guyora Binder, "Making The Best Of Felony Murder," 91 Boston U.L. Rev. 403, 482–95 (2011). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything other that Norval Morris source from UPenn Law, which is a pity, because this is a really interesting idea. I have to wonder how often a completely unrelated suicide occurs during the commission of a felony, though. It seems to me that that's the type of case you'd want to look at. If the suicide was a sudden reaction (e.g., bank robbery goes awry and one of the conspirators says, "Screw it, I'm not going to prison", and shoots himself), then you would have a good argument that the death was a proximate cause of the felony, and the rule would be more or less working as intended. (I'm assuming you're searching for an unique case where the rule appears to be applied in a weird/unintended way). Kalethan (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all. For clarity, I appreciate my original comment probably conveyed my feeling of the way the felony murder rule seems to be applied in sometimes in parts of the US but I don't actually care whether it can be argued to be fair that the felony murder rule applied to the suicide. I'm interested in all cases where the death was a suicide. My only exception is excluding those where the suicide is a key part of the case.

(This is somewhat difficult to define, and I acknowledge someone who takes their own live after committing a felony or whatever, may have a mental illness or other problems. But I wanted to exclude those cases where the main intent is to prosecute someone who it's felt assisted or pushed a suicide like the Conrad Roy example (even if felony murder wasn't used there). As to my mind, these are a special class, as evidenced for example by the discussion in some of the refs I provided. The suicide could still be related like where a co-felon kills themself rather than going to prison or someone kills themself as part of insurance fraud or a captive kills themselves rather than stay in captivity etc. But someone being prosecuted for felony murder for a completely unrelated suicide is also of interest although these would seem to be so unlikely they're probably not worth looking for.)

The reason this thought exercise arose is because of a talk page argument in relation to that controversial shooting in Georgia. Someone argued that the lead wasn't clear enough since the way it was worded at the time, the death could have been a suicide. Someone else countered that the mention of people being charged with felony murders was enough to establish that the death was a homicide (which is what the autopsy results concluded) and not a suicide. Since I like to nitpick, my first thought on this is it's wrong because you could have a case where there there's a dispute over whether someone killed themselves or it was staged to look like that. And although you would probably have problems sustaining such a case if every autopsy said suicide, you probably could do try with an inconclusive autopsy. (Okay yes, the article shouldn't be called "shooting of" in a case like that and there were probably other stuff which made it clear this wasn't the case, but that's a more sophisticated argument.)

But when I thought about it more, I realised that actually given how felony murder rule is applied, I suspected people could be charged with felony murder even over something no one disputes was suicide. My first thought example was a case where the suicide was a somewhat predictable outcome to those charged i.e. where the person had told their co-felons they'd kill themselves rather than get caught. But then reading more on the felony murder rule, I realised you probably didn't need that, even if the co-felons couldn't have really anticipated the suicide, they could probably still be charged in some cases.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

May 23

"... Forever hold your peace"?

The Book of Common Prayer wedding ceremony, as used in the Anglican Communion, contains a line rendered into modern English as "If any of you can show just cause why they may not lawfully be married, speak now; or else for ever hold your peace." [12]

What do they have in mind by "forever hold your peace"? Suppose that one of the wedding guests knows that one of the spouses is already married, and thus the marriage will be bigamous. However, the guest for whatever reason chooses not to interrupt the wedding. The guest then goes to the priest a few days later and says, "I was at Alan and Betty's wedding, and I know that Alan already has a wife in another city and has never gotten divorced from her. Is there anything that can be done about this?" I would think that the priest would want to know that information in order to take whatever action was appropriate, rather than to ignore Alan's bigamy on the grounds that the guest should have forever held their peace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Virtually an identical question was asked (by yours truly) on 29 April. Best look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 April 29#Or forever hold your peace to see what was canvassed there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

However, "forever hold your piece" could refer to a shotgun wedding. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Specifically addressing your scenario, it means that if you don't stop the wedding at that early stage, there's no going back without court proceedings. The upshot of the long conversation linked above was that the phrase is largely obsolete in most legal jurisdictions. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just now read the thread posted by JackofOz, so I think that will cover this question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Having read the previous thread, I think the conclusions reached there are somewhat incomplete. One thing you need to understand about the Anglo-Christian wedding ceremony is just how much of it incorporates elements of the English law related to real property. Note the presence of the phrase "to have and to hold" (habendum et tenendum). In many ways, the entire ceremony and its trappings—the presence of witnesses, the delivery of the bride by the father, the ceremonial exchange of rings—mirror in many ways the old English practice of livery of seisin as a mechanism for the transfer of real property. Livery of seisin was not mere ceremony and formality, either, but was a means of ensuring that, should an assize be required to determine the rightful possessor of the property, it was probable that the witnesses to the livery of seisin would be selected for the assize (juries and assizes of the period being the sources of evidence rather than presentations and testimony at trial). While it may seem odd to apply real property concepts to things like marriage, this was not uncommon in the period: Intangible real property, such as the advowson, hardly conduces itself to livery of seisin.
  So what about this "Speak now or forever hold your peace"? Certainly, when dealing with real property, the fact that someone failed to raise an objection or impediment at the time of the conveyance wouldn't prevent the person with rightful title from retaking possession through the judicial system. That said, I suspect there's a connection to the ecclesiastical side of things here. The ecclesiastical courts were the origin of equity in the English legal tradition, and one of the core principles in equity is the concept of laches: That one who fails to assert his rights in a timely fashion may be denied those rights. In the Anglo-Christian marriage tradition, one could also point out that the marriage ceremony has many of the trappings of an in rem action: One that seeks to declare the rights of the subject matter (the marriage of the parties) with respect to the whole world. Consider the publication of the banns of marriage, similar to service by publication. In fact, looking at the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the banns of marriage, I would suggest that the admonition to "speak now or forever hold your peace" is essentially a fourth publication of the banns, and represents a final warning to all interested parties to provide their objections. Consider this passage:

  Whoever is morally certain either by his own knowledge or through reliable persons, of an impediment (e.g. consanguinity, affinity, previous marriage) to an intended marriage, is conscience bound to reveal it to the parish priest of the contacting parties; it then becomes the duty of such parish priest to investigate the statement made to him (usually under oath) and decide to the character of the evidence; if a grave suspicion be aroused in him, he must refer the case to the bishop, who decides whether a dispensation can or cannot be granted.

  Note the legalistic aspects of this; statement made usually under oath, referral to the bishop only if it arouses a "grave suspicion" in the parish priest, and even then the bishop may grant a dispensation. I hope that helps illuminate things. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Gender-specific names

Are there societies without the concept of gender-specific names?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.23.101 (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

All six kinship systems have gender differentiated kin names i.e. Iroquois, Crow, Omaha, Inuit, Hawaiian and Sudanese.
Sleigh (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The Yoruba people traditionally had given names which were not gender-specific, however this began to change with the introduction of Islam and Christianity in the 19th century. See What Gender is Motherhood?: Changing Yorùbá Ideals of Power, Procreation and Identity (Chapter 6). Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Chinese and a lot of Asians are like a 3rd category - most names are genderless. But some names are masculine and some feminine. I'd say at least 90% of names in Chinese can be for any gender. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

Does that factoid come from the same source that says the speed of light is 186,000 miles per hour? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

For those bewildered by Bugs' question, see the query "Digestion" recently posted by this IP querant on the Science Ref Desk. (The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.35.198 (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Chinese given name says: "It is frequently the case that children are given names based on gender stereotypes, with boys acquiring 'masculine' names implying strength or courage while girls receive 'feminine' names concerning beauty or flowers. Since doubled characters are considered diminutives in Chinese, many girls also receive names including a doubled pair of characters or two characters with identical pronunciation". Alansplodge (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

90% is a ridiculous number. Most of the time it's not difficult to tell what gender someone is from hearing their name for the reasons that Alansplodge quoted. There are a good number of unisex names, but the masculine/feminine connotations of the characters in a name are pretty strong. There's a reason why the table in Chinese given name doesn't need to include the gender of the most common names, and it's not because they're all unisex. bibliomaniac15 22:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Linguistically, it would not surprise me at all, though I’m not aware of any specific instances of cultures lacking the concept. My feeling is that the cultures you’d most likely find this phenomenon would be ones where the language spoken lacks any sort of grammatical gender, or at least lacking any form of gender in morphology (a counterexample would be Romance languages). The example of Chinese above is actually relevant given there is very limited support for grammatical gender in most Chinese languages (or dialects, if you prefer). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The wiki article Sikh names claims that all given Sikh names are gender neutral. However, the culture does have the concept of gendered names since there are two Khalsa (baptismal) names; one is masculine and one feminine.

The wiki article Tibetan name says only a very few names in this culture are gendered (which means the concept does exist, even if it is rare). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

POTUS as federal employee

According to [13], Trump gets paid quarterly ($100K per quarter) and opts to donate the amount (he can afford it). But I thought all federal employees got paid twice a month. Is it different on the Executive Schedule? I notice that the POTUS is not listed there. Is he not under the federal labor code, whatever it's called?

I had also heard that room and board at the White House is deducted from the president's pay--and it's a lot, like being in a fancy hotel, so new presidents are always surprised when they see how large the deduction is. So that's at odds with the check in the picture being for the full $100K. 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The president's compensation appears to be set by 3 US Code § 102 or chapter 2 of Title 3 of the United States Code. This is separate from 5 U.S.C. §§ 5311–5318 which set the executive schedule. Note that the word compensation is as given in the code. This compares to the salary of the vice-president which also refers to the general schedule [14]. While Title 5 of the United States Code [15] does say "The pay period for an employee covers two administrative workweeks" (so not twice a month!), the president doesn't seem to meet the definition of employee

(1) The term “employee” means— (A) an employee in or under an Executive agency; (B) an employee in or under the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Botanic Garden, and the Library of Congress, for whom a basic administrative workweek is established under section 6101(a)(5) of this title ; and (C) an individual employed by the government of the District of Columbia.

and of course as we've established presidents don't actually receive a salary according to the US code anyway. Also, the president or first family appears to pay for "board" (although only really part of it), but not "room" [16] [17]. In fact, we saw earlier that 3 US Code § 102 specifically "He shall be entitled also to the use of the furniture and other effects belonging to the United States and kept in the Executive Residence at the White House" which admittedly doesn't clearly address the issue of the White House itself. We also saw that "expense allowance of $50,000 to assist in defraying expenses relating to or resulting from the discharge of his official duties", and obviously the salaries of the various people are also paid by the federal government [18], so I don't think you can really compare it to a fancy hotel. I don't know precisely how these expenses are recovered by many reports seem to refer to the first family and many also refer to the "first lady", so I expect receiving the bill and getting it paid may be part of her managing the White House job [19] [20]. (To be fair, while I find the first lady concept somewhat sexist, you probably do want someone other than the president worrying about stuff like that.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It strikes me that it's also possible that the president can access for expenses to be deducted from their compensation and probably some or even most do, but President Trump or someone involved recognised that boasting you're donating your $400,000 "salary" when you've asked for expenses to be deducted first would come across poorly in the press and so didn't ask for this to happen. It's also possible these expense are deducted on a different schedule from quarterly and so there was none coming out of that particular cheque. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Where did the IP get the "I have heard" info about supposed deducting for room and board? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

On the internet, of course. A quick web search shows that it's just for board though: they don't pay for housing.[21][22] 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for providing sources. Though I have to wonder about a source that indicates the Obamas took office in 2007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be suspicious about a source that indicates they both "took office" at all. Fortunately, what the marketplace.org page actually says is that they moved into the White House then. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton is famous for her "We are the president". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting quote or title but I couldn't find any reference to it, when did she say or write that? --TZubiri (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you've looked. I just found literally 87.7 million google hits for it in the simplest possible search. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that writeup, it was 2009, not 2007. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

However that's not really correct either as I already noted. They don't pay for any Whitehouse staff who cook and serve the food which would generally be part of "board". (I guess for presidents who like to order McDonald's and KFC, maybe it seems like they do pay for food in its entirety. Although I'm fairly sure that such food is being brought in by security vetted staffers and not Uber delivery drivers, so even then.....) Nor for the table they eat the food on or any of the other shared living spaces. Arguably utility bills, especially the non fixed portions (electricity or other fuels costs, and maybe water usage) may be part of board as well, again especially those use for cooking the food and the shared living space, which they also don't pay. (To be clear, this isn't criticism of the US arrangement for presidents, I'm simply suggesting the comparisons are misleading.)

BTW I somehow completely missed that 3 US Code § 102 says "aggregate amount of $400,000 a year, to be paid monthly" (emphasis added). So maybe you will get some poor federal employee worrying about whether to apply 5 U.S. Code § 5504 or 3 US Code § 102 for the payment schedule of the president, but probably not and they just pay him monthly. Especially given the definition of employee and the fact the compensation is explicitly not referred to as a salary and I'm fairly sure there's nothing in the law suggesting 5 § 5504 should take precedent over 3 § 102 which explicitly refers to said compensation.

As for how this fits with the suggestion Trump is paid quarterly, I don't know for sure. But if you look at the details [23], this is not a cheque from the government to the president. (I guess Americans really do still pay their president by cheques?) It's a cheque from Trump to the HHS. While the press secretary does appear to suggest the money is going "direct" from Trump from his salary that he does not take, it seems easily possible this is a simplification and the Guardian perhaps guided by this is simply wrong. These earlier discussions [24] [25] do suggest he is paid monthly.

So most likely Trump is paid $33333.33 a month and $33333.34 on the third month or something, and he is then paying someone quarterly. Although assuming the president is really paid by cheque, I guess it's possible he just doesn't cash his cheques until he gets 3. And those cheques could be less, we still don't know how personal expenses are paid. If they are coming directly from the compensation, this simplification may explain why he seems to pay the entire $400,000 in four parts [26] [27]. If so, I sort of think he hasn't realised he's doing that, given the lack of boasts about it.

While this could mean Trump is earning interest on for the 2 + 1 month or so between receiving his cheque and donating it, frankly even putting aside low interest rates at the moment, this seems to be a lame criticism compare to all the other issues [28] [29] for what's mostly an administrative simplification. That said, I don't know why it wasn't made clearer by the press secretary that he is paid monthly and then pays out quarterly if this is really what is happening especially since it was a press conference and not a 280 character limited Tweet. In at least some previous cases involving press releases [30] and Tweets like [31] and [32]/[33] stuff like 2019 Q4 salary or simply donating his salary "thoroughout the year", rather than suggesting the money is going direct from his salary he doesn't take. So reduces the chance of misleading people into thinking he is only paid quarterly.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

May 24

Invasion of Spain during Spanish-American War

Did the Americans ever considered invading Spain during the Spanish-American War? KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

According to War Plans and Preparations and Their Impact on U.S. Naval Operations in the Spanish-American War from the Naval History and Heritage Command, apparently there was no thought of invasion, but a plan made in 1896 by Lieutenant William Kimball (so not very high up the chain-of-command) recommended raids on the Spanish coast. When the Naval War College examined the plan, "The proposed expedition to Spanish waters was thought to be counter-productive as it might harden Spanish resolve and invite unwanted diplomatic pressure from other European countries". Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

From the same source, I also found; Plan of Operations Against Spain Prepared by Lieutenant William W. Kimball (1896), 6/1/1897. This seems to be a discussion paper rather than an actual war plan. He postulates that a US squadron could operate in the Mediterranean where Spanish coastal towns were less heavily fortified. "The method to apply to towns would be to appear off them, to demand a ransom, and if it were not promptly paid to toss a heavy shell or two into the town itself to show the seriousness of the situation". A big problem would be the provision of coal for the squadron as there were no US bases there; Kimball imagined that this could be solved by sending US colliers under the British flag to Suez and somehow replenishing at sea. Alansplodge (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

As noted, the idea of seriously doing this would have been a rather big deal, violating the Monroe Doctrine and potentially provoking a war with other European powers who likely wouldn't appreciate the U.S. attacking European soil. The aim of the war was to seize Spain's colonies, not potentially start a world war. A thought-provoking alternate history scenario, but either the British or Imperial German Navy of the time alone could have annihilated the U.S. Navy if either felt intervention was warranted. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It would have been wildly impractical, logistically speaking. It's very hard to keep a sizable force (much less one able to seize a country the size of Spain) supplied with food, ammunition, etc. across an ocean. The US Navy of that time would in all likelihood have nothing close to the capability to do so. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As noted above, coal would have been an major issue. From Norfolk VA to Rota in Spain is 3351 nautical miles; USS Indiana (BB-1) had a range of 4,900 nm so would have been able to get there but not back again. US Navy experiments in 1899 and 1900 with refuelling at sea by winching 800lb bags between a collier and a battleship resulted in the conclusion that not only were specially constructed colliers required, but that the operation was impractical on the open ocean. Naval War College Review (1981) p. 61 The same source notes that in the Far East, Commodore George Dewey was dependant on the goodwill of the British to use Hong Kong harbour for re-coaling, as the Japanese had declared strict neutrality. However he was unable to buy sufficient coal on the open market because the threat of war had caused all the shipping companies in the region to hoard stocks. He was only able to refuel because he used shipping agents to purchase in advance the whole cargo of a collier outbound from the UK. No coal would have meant no Battle of Manila Bay. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, Spain had a large conscript army. I can't find figures for 1899 but in 1920 it numbered 500,000. The US Army, by mobilising the National Guard and recruiting masses of volunteers, "managed to expand to 58,688 men by August 1898 (however, most of these men were recruited too late to actually serve during the brief war)". [34] So assuming that a force could be taken across the Atlantic, however large it was, it wouldn't be large enough to fight the Spanish once they got ashore. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Spanish-American War does state: "Madrid sued for peace after two Spanish squadrons were sunk in Santiago de Cuba and Manila Bay and a third, more modern, fleet was recalled home to protect the Spanish coasts." And then it also talks about the Cámara's squadron recalled to defend Cadiz. So it seems there was a fear on the Spanish governmental level that there was a need to defend the coast of Spain from a potential American raid. KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am simply guessing, but the motivation may have been more to deter other European nations than the U.S. Would need to do some research to see if there's information on what was behind it. In limited wars like this there's also the whole I-know-you-know-that-I-know strategizing. The U.S. may never have seriously planned for an attack on Spain itself, but if Spain had simply left itself wide open to attack, they might have threatened one as a move to gain leverage in negotiations. If the Spanish public had been aware, they might have been fearful of such an attack and pressured the government to accept whatever terms the U.S. wanted. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Idiomatic translation

Hi Folk, anybody up for giving me a idiomatic translation of the following German quote:

Und man sollte, ob es uns heute paßt oder nicht, nicht verschweigen, daß es da immerhin auch eine ‚Rote Kapelle‘ gegeben hat: Kommunisten, die faktisch auch in diesem Kampf standen und auch als Opfer des Nationalsozialismus gefallen sind. Welches Geistes Kinder diese alle auch waren und wie man auch von ihren besonderen Absichten und deren Ausführungen heute denken mag: Sie wollten damals nicht dabei sein bei dem, was die Nationalsozialisten wollten, sie wollten ihrem verderbten und verderblichen Regiment eine Grenze setzen, ein Ende machen. […] Hätten sie Erfolg gehabt, so hätte das bedeuten können, daß ein ganz großes Maß weiterer menschlicher und auch materieller Opfer nicht mehr hätte gebracht werden müssen. Sie hatten keinen Erfolg. Und das lag nicht nur an ihnen, sondern doch auch daran, daß in Deutschland so wenige, bevor es etwa ungefährlich wurde, entschlossen und hilfreich neben sie treten wollten, und daß ihnen von außen so gar kein Verständnis und keine sinnvolle Unterstützung zuteil wurde.

Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I could offer the following:

And whether we like it or not, it must be said that there was nevertheless also a "Red Band" (Rote Kapelle): communists who were in fact also in this fight and died as victims of National Socialism. Whatever spirit guided them and whatever we might think of their specific intentions and talk today, they didn't want to be part of what the Nazis were planning but rather to draw a line between themselves and the corrupt and pernicious Nazi domination and put an end to it.

[...] If they had succeeded, it could have meant that, to a very great extent, further human and also material sacrifice would no longer have been necessary. They didn't succeed. And that was due not only to them but also to the fact that so few in Germany, before it became reasonably safe, stood ready to help them and absolutely no one on the outside sympathized with them or provided meaningful support.

Jmar67 (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Jmar67: That is grand. Its by Karl Barth. Coolio scope_creep^Talk 01:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Rote Kapelle is usually translated as Red Orchestra. 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Southern Europeans generally more financially well off than Northern Europeans?

After all this time, EU member states apparently still do not seem to agree on the main overall purpose of or why the European Union came into being and continues to exist to begin with. If you have been following the international politics of the European Union in the past decade, you certainly know about the fractious divide between the "frugal" fiscally conservative Northern European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the Baltic states) and the profligate spendthrift heavily indebted Southern European countries (Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) that flared up during the European debt crisis when the latter threw a huge temper tantrum over austerity (the German foreign minister even recently called it "torture tool/device" Lmao rofl). Now this divide has manifested once more during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic with huge emotional drama over coronabonds with governments of Southern Europe calling for "solidarity" in the form of grants funded by jointly issued EU-wide debt if not outright free money as opposed to loans individually borrowed and paid back by each responsible member country while their northern counterparts have staunchly opposed such proposals citing moral hazard among other reasons. Of course, this dispute is extremely controversial with many people in Southern Europe including government officials claiming that the general public and the media of Northern Europe have a racist stereotypical view of the South even though the current governments of Italy and Spain have been unwilling to make any long-term meaningful deficit-reducing structural reforms to abide by the requirements of the European Fiscal Compact. Anyway, I am not a European but I live in the United States, where citizens still trust their own government enough to purchase its bonds, and so I don't have all the relevant facts on the situation in Europe. To get a clearer understanding of the situation, I need help on clarification and factual confirmation of the following questions:

1. The latest information from Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Databook seems to indicate that private households living in Greece, Italy, and Spain are overall just as wealthy if nor much more so than those living in Germany and the Netherlands. How true is this? Do Italians actually have more savings than Germans?
2. Do Northern European governments collect much more taxes from their citizens or have much higher and more aggressive tax-collecting ability than their southern counterparts?
3. Is home-ownership in Italy and Spain much higher while most people in Germany and the Netherlands are renters?
4. The Double Irish Dutch Sandwich combo along with other tax haven schemes that cause Italy and Spain to lose tax revenues every year are totally legal according to EU laws and regulations, correct?

StellarHalo (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a statistician, but Mean and median income by household type - EU-SILC and ECHP surveys gives a rather different picture, with Spain, Italy and especially Greece (€7,875 per household) well behind countries like Germany, Sweden and Denmark (€30,097 per household). Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In Northern Europe, most people that do not belong to the 1% are happy to pay taxes, knowing that most of it is spent on infrastructure, education, health, and other public services that benefit all, so paying one's due share (from each according to their ability) is considered an act of solidarity. In Greece the infamous fakelaki serves a dual purpose. For the recipients, it is a way of evading taxes. For the payers, it is an unavoidable evil to get access to services needed. Obviously, the payers' tax morale will not be stellar either. In France, avoiding paying tax through legal or less legal means is considered a national sport.^[35][36][37]  --Lambiam 12:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the October 2019 Global wealth databook 2019 report by Credit Suisse, wealth – by their definition – per adult in mid-2019 was as follows:

_____________Mean _______Median

Austria ____US$274,919 ___ $94,070

Denmark _____$284,022 ___ $58,784

Germany _____$216,654 ___ $35,313

Ireland _______$272,310 ___ $104,842

the Netherlands _279,077 ___ $31,057

Sweden ______$265,260 ___ $41,582

Estonia _______$78,458 ___ $24,915

Latvia ________$60,347 ___ $13,348

Lithuania ______$50,254 ___ $22,261

Greece ________$96,110 ___ $40,000

Italy _________$234,139 ___ $91,889

Portugal ______$131,088 ___ $44,025

Spain ________$207,531 ___ $95,360

Note that there is no mention of savings, just assets. Those may be yacths, mansions, art, stocks, bonds, real estate, cash, etc. Home ownership rates are in your link (note: [the lack of] tax breaks for home owners is very important in this issue).

As for the entirely separate issue of taxation, Northern European governments collect more tax from individuals than do those in Southern Europe, as shown in your link.

On the third unrelated subject of corporate tax structures, these play a role in why companies chose to locate in one place but not another. The weight of that reason will vary with every single case.

DOR (HK) (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

May 25

Te Rata Mahuta

Can someone help find an image or photograph of Te Rata Mahuta that is in the public domain? I think a good route to look for this would be newspaper coverage of his 1914 travels but a cursory look in newspapers.com hasn't gotten anything for me that includes a photograph of the king. There is one from his death but that one is not in the public domain. KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR: You might be able to use it via WP:NFCC if there are no other images available. RudolfRed (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There's one from that trip at the National Library of New Zealand [38] labelled "no access restrictions" - but in fact it won't be accessible until the library reopens and their online services are available again. But it's an option if we can't come up with something immediately available.70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

First I'm assuming this is for Wikimedia Commons or something, none of this is intended as legal advice. Anyway fairly sure no access restrictions just means anyone is allowed access. It doesn't say anything about copyright and indeed if you look at that page it says copyright: unknown. If you look at the details it was a studio photograph taken at Miles & Kaye in 1914. However there is no photographer detail so you may need to investigate the studio more to work out copyright details. There is this which we at least have some idea better idea [39]. It claims the photographer died in 1973. If this work was created in NZ that would most likely mean it will be in the public domain where it was created in ~3.5 years. (Copyright law of New Zealand, [40]) However since this was of the delegation that went to the UK, there is a chance that the photographer actually followed them and so it was created in the UK. You would need to investigate further. If it was created in the UK it would potentially be ~23.5 years. (Copyright law of the United_Kingdom, [41].) You'd also need to check what the status is for the US. Nil Einne (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Flynn again

[42] This keeps getting weirder. Two questions:

• "In asking the D.C. Circuit to intervene, Flynn’s attorneys are arguing that prosecutors have exclusive authority to decide whether to drop a case and accusing Sullivan of judicial overreach." Since Flynn pled guilty, he presumably wasn't indicted by a grand jury. Would it possible for that to happen now, against the DOJ's wishes? I.e. a runaway grand jury. Could the judge convene something like that? If the jury indicted, could the judge appoint a special prosecutor or something? (Or alternatively, maybe the judge could appoint a special prosecutor to convene the grand jury).
• The judge apparently hired a lawyer to argue to the appeal court against dropping the Flynn case. When I first saw the headline about the judge hiring a lawyer, I thought he was lawyering up to defend himself against possible prosecution. Just how unusual is this? Who pays the the judge's legal bills? If his court pays it, why doesn't it happen more often? If he pays it out-of-pocket, does that suggest he really does think he might be in trouble?

Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Since Flynn pled guilty, he presumably wasn't indicted by a grand jury. I don't know why that would be the case. You generally can't plead to anything until you've been charged. And that must happen either by indictment or information. As to the rest of the speculation about the actions of a grand jury or the role of the judge in causing a prosecution to take place, I find that to be exceptionally unlikely. It all depends on what the federal grand jury and special prosecutor statutes themselves say.

The judge apparently hired a lawyer to argue to the appeal court against dropping the Flynn case. When I first saw the headline about the judge hiring a lawyer, I thought he was lawyering up to defend himself against possible prosecution. Just how unusual is this? As the article indicates, it's quite unusual, but it's the procedural posture of the case that makes it possible. Flynn is seeking a writ of mandamus, which is at least historically an original writ rather than a normal appeal, and functions like a collateral action against the judge himself. That is to say, Flynn's petition seeks to compel the district court judge to do something that he has no discretion to refuse to do, and is therefore suing him (in his official capacity) to compel him to take that action. In many jurisdictions, mandamus actions are captioned as "[Petitioner's name] v. [Judge's name]" or "[Petitioner's name] v. [Court's name]" (e.g., Burnham v. Superior Court of California, which began as mandamus to the superior court in the state appellate court, and eventually was taken to SCOTUS).

In any event, this peculiar procedural posture, combined with the fact that the DOJ isn't an adverse party (i.e., they want the writ to issue as much as Flynn), means the lower court's usual posture of letting the parties argue isn't feasible. That said, it's possible for the appellate court to appoint counsel to argue, and my understanding is that in some circles it might even be considered improper for the lower court to participate in any way. Thus, it's quite rare for the lower court judge to be hiring counsel to participate in this sort of case. That said, I don't think it'd be unusual for a judge to hire outside counsel to weigh his options. Just how unusual is this? Who pays the the judge's legal bills? If his court pays it, why doesn't it happen more often? If he pays it out-of-pocket, does that suggest he really does think he might be in trouble? I'm honestly not sure who pays, but (1) the uncommon procedural posture and the (im)propriety of participating in appeals and collateral actions I mention above explains why it's extraordinarily uncommon, and (2) there's no indication that the judge is "in trouble" here. Worst case, the judge will be told to dismiss the case by the appellate court, and almost certainly will. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Federal grand juries are an interesting beast. I was under the impression they are single purpose things since you always hear how someone is conveying a grand jury. However in reality they tend to run for 18 months and are hearing multiple cases simultaneously and indicting when the prosecutor feels there is enough evidence [43] [44] [45] (the grand jury has to agree, but we'll get to that). According to that Washington Post source, there can be special purpose grand juries, so I assume the case where someone convenes a federal grand jury for a specific case probably exists, but it's not the majority. According to Wisenberg, federal judges do actually convene the grand jury but don't usually interfere. If you read Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 [46], it does actually say "the court" although the government can object for certain reasons.

However it's not actually clear to me how a runaway grand jury can arise in federal court, actually it's not clear to me from the rules how grand juries decide on indictments other than requiring 12 people. It's clear from Grand juries in the United States#Federal law and the other sources that the norm is the prosecutor presents the case, witnesses are called and eventually the prosecutor asks for an indictment usually very successfully (it's clear from our article and other sources that federal grand juries are often seen as simply a rubber stamp). But it's not clear when they can go beyond what the prosecutor wants and how. For the aforementioned rubber stamp issue, I think one of the issues is that grand juries often don't really know their power and so just follow the prosecutor.

But even so, I'm not sure that a grand jury is supposed to be able to say "Yo, we heard about that Flynn case on Twitter so we're going to call witnesses and decide whether to indict". I suspect at most, if they hear witnesses talking about it they are supposed to be able to investigate further and maybe return an indictment even if the prosecutor doesn't ask for one. It seems moot to me. AFAICT reading our article and cases like William C. Dodge#Runaway grand jury (which wasn't federal), runaway grand juries are good for applying pressure for the government to act. But since federal law still disallows private prosecutions, if the government doesn't want to act, I'm fairly sure they can still just ask for the case to be dismissed despite the grand jury indictment.

According to special prosecutor there's no real federal statutes governing special prosecutors anymore, instead it's just regulation/policy and these only allow the justice department to decide to appoint one. The courts don't have a role in appointing one. It does seem that Congress has got involved in the past, so potentially they could legislate again and perhaps it would be constitutional, but until they do it doesn't sound like any can be done if the Justice Department is set on a course of action. The only option would seem to be bringing a case arguing the Justice Department is doing is in some way illegal. The current case as mentioned you asked last time is a little different since there was a guilty plea, so it's less clear if it's just up to the Justice Department.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked into this further. It seems "runaway federal grand juries" were basically eliminated by 6 and 7 [47] of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [48] [49]. Rule 7 which I missed before does specifically say "must be signed by an attorney for the government". Intriguingly both of those sources do suggest a judge could be the one to allow grand jury allegations of criminal behaviour to be made public instead of a prosecutor/government attorney, I think this arises from the secrecy requirements. It's not clear to me that a judge can do so absent the government or defendant petitioning them per e 2 E of Rule 6 although it's possible there is case law allowing others, I can't be bothered looking into it further.

If you read the sources especially the second one, it does seem court have largely upheld these perceived limitations on federal grand juries. Notably they basically eliminated the presentment i.e. when a grand jury alleges a crime without the government agreeing. The most recent example I could find of an alleged runaway federal grand jury is Rocky Flats Plant#Sealed grand jury records [50] [51]. However if you look at that case, the details support the idea they've basically been eliminated. It sounds like the grand jury tried to present an indictment but the prosecutor wouldn't sign it and they also made a presentment but it was sealed along with their other cases notes and stuff that they wanted to release as is the norm for most grand jury proceedings.

And a key point, although both Baltimore Sun and Constitution Society sources are fairly critical of these changes, especially Constitution Society. And both do seem to feel that grand juries should be able to decide to investigate Flynn because of what someone tweeted about it. (I simplify, my point is it doesn't need to be because of something that arose in their existing investigation.)

Yet they still seem to suggest that even with greater powers, other than in exonerating suspects all the grand jury was really doing was applying public pressure. The presentment may say this person committed a crime and should be prosecuted for it, but you're still stuck with the same problem namely the government still needs to prosecute in the absence of private prosecutions. So even if a federal grand jury were to allege Flynn may have committed a crime and even if a judge were to allow this presentment to be made public, this would still only serve to apply pressure and/or maybe spur Congress to act rather than directly leading to a court case in the absence of the Justice department being willing themselves.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I know the Office of Independent Counsel was eliminated some years ago, So it sounds like there's a gap in the system, if someone in the exec branch commits a real crime and the DOJ just won't do anything about it. Not that surprising, I guess. (Ok, there is still a special counsel authorized by statute, described in the OIC article.) 2601:648:8202:96B0:A4FA:1C65:4DD0:74DD (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

May 26

Lion's Tail

I saw a documentary several months ago and I can’t shake what was mentioned and it has continued to play on my mind. Googling as hard as I can, I am not able to find any answers. I am fairly well informed on African wildlife, yet this is the first time I have heard of this. Please could you tell me if this is true or not, and if true, please provide pictures. It was said that a lion has a bony part in the tuft at the end of the tail which can be used to whip animals during hunting and which can be very painful. Thanks 86.186.232.80 (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Try googling "lion skeleton diagram". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Baseball Bugs, useful as always. A diagram doesn't allow one to know if the final bone in the tail can be used as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.232.80 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to make a donation in my name, to your favorite Humanities charity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

See sarcasm. You don't have to answer every question with a pseudo intellectual quip. You can just say (to yourself) "I don't know". -- 86.8.202.97 10:20, 27 May 2020‎

...Said the cowardly anonymous user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

For the rest of the answer, see Lion#Description, which confirms the bone spur but says its function is unknown. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very useful, it is appreciated. Does anyone have a picture of this spur? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.232.80 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

One here (bottom photo). Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We're not supposed to do speculation here but I can't resist: I wonder if the spur might be a counterweight. Smaller cats such as housecats use their tails to stay balanced while running and jumping. No idea if that would work for something the size of a lion. 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

In an 1873 article, a Professor Turner noted that the traditional supposed purpose of the spur was that the lion could "whip itself" into a frenzy, citing a passage in the Iliad. Turner (1873). "On the so-called Prickle or Claw at the end of the tail of the Lion and other Felines". Journal of Anatomy and Physiology. 7: 271–273. PMID 17230977. I should note that he seems to also claim that such a structure exists in the leopard, but from what I've read elsewhere, the lion is the only feline with such a structure. So it's possible that the samples Professor Turner examine in that article were documenting something else (particularly given he concludes the spur is "integument", or hardened skin tissue, rather than the bone that the lion's spur is evidently made of). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The Quarterly Journal of Foreign and British Medicine and Surgery: Volume V, 1823, p. 479 has some more about the classical references; the "Blumenbach" mentioned is Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

May 27

African demographics

In Southern Africa in the 1990's there was much talk about how the AIDS epidemic would decimate the black african population leading toward a narrowing of the equilibrium divide between the black/white ethnic groups. This was further compounded with Mbeki's stance on antiretovirals. My question is; has the prediction come true and to what extent? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.202.97 (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS in Africa is the relevant article. Alansplodge (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that back in the 1990s, there was no cure for AIDS and being infected was considered a short-order death sentence. The demographic predictions were based on such dramatic premises. However, this is no longer the case, as medical advances now allow people to live with AIDS for decades and lead normal lives. So, the scenario of a whole generation being infected, dying young and not having children did not come to pass (or at least only in much smaller numbers than the catastrophic scenarios circulating 30 years ago). Xuxl (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever impact it had was much closer to the true meaning of "decimate" (reduce by 10% down to 90%), rather than its usual loose meaning (virtually wipe out). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "true meaning", please see etymological fallacy. --76.71.5.208 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Jack here. I find it hard to accept new meanings of words that develop through ignorance, often the wilful version. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

May 28

"Heil Hitler" to Hitler himself

I have read that Adolf Hitler wanted people to greet him personally with "Heil, mein Führer" instead of "Heil Hitler", because in the latter case, he would have had to say "Heil Hitler" back, and he did not want to speak of himself in the third person. Why would he have had to do that? Couldn't he just have said what he wanted? JIP | Talk 19:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So, would he then have said "Heil, mein Führer" back to them? What's the German expression for "Hail to ME"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No, according to what I have read, he wanted to be greeted with "Heil, mein Führer" so he could reply with just "Heil". What I am asking here is that why he couldn't have done that also when greeted with "Heil Hitler". JIP | Talk 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

He could have said that in response to Heil Hitler too. However, maybe calling him "Hitler" to his face would have been kind of impolite. Where did you read about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation of German word

Hi Folks. Can somebody who speaks and reads good German, give me a translation of the word "Kapelle". Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it not "Chapel"?[52] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Baseball Bugs: How are you. I don't think we have spoke before. Do you read and speak German? scope_creep^Talk 22:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nein. But I looked it up in Google Translate, which is always chancy, but Etymology Online was consistent with it. Do you think it means something else in whatever context you saw it in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yip, I have editor who think the translation is slightly wrong in the Red Orchestra article. I need somebody to verify all the translation that mention the word, "Chapel", or more specifically, a couple of instances. The translation from "Kapelle" to chapel is not accurate somehow. It is nuanced somehow, at a level I don't understand at the moment. The context is not aligned in one or two parts. I'll get to the bottom of it. I need to find out what they are. I need to identify them. Thanks.scope_creep^Talk 22:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the other option Google Translate gives is "band", which seems kind of odd, but maybe it makes sense in the context of that article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

See Kapellmeister where it mentions "consisting of the roots Kapelle ("choir", "orchestra" or, originally, "chapel")". MarnetteD|Talk 22:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @MarnetteD: So chapel is an older interpretation, which my editor is unhappy with. The conversation with the editor is on my talk page. That editor seems to be worrying about the first sentence which is -- The Red Orchestra (German: Die Rote Kapelle, German: [ˈʁoː.tə kaˈpɛ.lə] ), or the Red Chapel as it was known in Germany. Cursorily, he looked at Kapellmeister and mentioned it as well. I think now, the whole idea of Red Chapel is perhaps too old as a applicable term, and it needs to be taken out. Certainly it is still used on the gbooks, jstor, even t&f, but now its been brought into doubt. scope_creep^Talk 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if all the times "chapel" appears in the article it is in a Wikipedia translation of a German source, rather than being from an English language source that has rendered Kapelle as chapel. So I don't see an RS reason for using chapel instead of orchestra.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How Does Wikipedia Determine which States are Countries?

There are multiple ways territories can be classified on Wikipedia, I will list a few as an example:

1. Country 2. State 3. Sovereign State 4. Province 5. Special Administrative Region

How does Wikipedia determine which territories are classified as countries? This is contentious in some situations. Here are a few examples:

1. Vatican City State 2. State of Palestine 3. Somaliland 4. Kosovo 5. Republic of China (Taiwan) 6. Northern Ireland

I'm sure there must be a way to come to a decision on territories that are controversial, how does Wikipedia go about deciding this? What are the criteria?

Greenfish77 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)