Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 24

Firing Squad Regulations - German Army - WW2

I used to read a lot of Sven Hassel, and while his books may have been mostly fiction (and some even rumoured to have not even been written by him), they are full of minute details, many of which are completely unecessary for the plot of the story as a whole - sort of lending a certain amount of credence to the details, as it were. One episode that has always puzzled me was of a firing squad who had executed a prisoner and, contrary to the rules and protocol for firing squads, one of the members had shot the prisoner in the face. The rules stated that prisoners should be shot squarely in the chest. As punishment, the whole squad was then sent to the Eastern Front whereupon they were promptly killed. Is there a basis in fact here? Was it actually against the rules for a firing squad to shoot a prisoner in the face? I found it odd, because prisoners who are still alive afterwards tend to be despatched with a bullet to the head anyway. I seem to remember the unit in question in the story was Wehrmacht and not Schutzstaffel. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Depictions of firing squads I have seen and accounts I have read, from various countries' armies, including WW2 German, have shown the prisoner being shot in the chest (with the heart sometimes marked as a target). A regulation saying "don't shoot them in the face" seems plausible, since a shot to the face might be painful and disfiguring without being fatal. People have had their cheeks and jaws shot away and lived. It is potentially a wasted bullet. Sometimes after the first volley, a doctor finds the prisoner's heart is still beating, and it is necessary to reload and fire a second volley (or to take a pistol and put a bullet through his brain). Here are some accounts of firing squads where the prisoner did not die after the volley of rifle (or musket) fire. Not all armies apparently used the shot to the head to finish off a wounded prisoner. Another reason to ban shooting in the face is to confirm the intended person was executed. It would be easy to shoot off the face of a substitute victim, and report to the authorities that so and so had been executed, if he had sufficient friends and admirers, such as some famous mutineer, hero, or political or religious leader. The shot to the head after the volley is shown as being to the side of the head, more than being a shot to the face from the front. Edison (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record I would like to point out that not only are there "rumours" that he did not write some of his book himself, there has also recently been made a plausible case against Hassels claims of him doing any active war service for the Germans at all. This was recently aired in a Danish documentary "Sven Hazel skandalen", and was based on the work of Danish journalists that was revealed back in 1963 (not the work of Haaest that is mentioned in the article, but a competing team, that is apparently infighting with Haaest over who did the actual discovery of the fraud). In fact the only kind of service Hassel did for the Germans was to serve in HIPO Corps in Copenhagen during the last months of the war. As I understand it many of the minute details in Hassels books have been criticised by actual veterans for their inaccuracy or even for being plain wrong. That is not to say that this particular detail may be incorrect, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case here, but many firing squads (of recent times) take care to avoid revealing who fired the fatal shot. If one guy shoots them in the head (or tries to) then he knows whether he was responsible or not. I forget whether teh German Army went to such lengths.- Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 11:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Purely speculating here... I could understand a rule against shooting someone in the face (as opposed to the head)... the government might want the face to remain recognizable... for identification purposes. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, we did it differently. Bullets are expensive, you know... Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I was guessing that it may be for identification purposes. A single bullet could mess up a face quite easily, never mind twelve of them! What I was really looking for was some proof that this regulation actually existed. I am interested not only in the regulation itself, but also in the claims to Sven Hassel's lack of credibility. I would have thought that putting unnecessary yet highly specific details in his stories would harm his credibility considerably if they turned out to be incorrect. As a casual 'fan' of sorts, I have taken it upon myself to check up on individual tiny details in his stories, just to see for myself how real or realistic the stories attributed to him are. Getting back to the regulation itself, I would like to know to whom this regulation applied - which type of prisoner(s), which wing(s) of the armed forces, whether it was strictly adhered to in the later years of the war, and so on. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One interesting thing in the history of firing squads I cited, and in other results from Google Book search, was how many of the shooters missed the target, perhaps deliberately. Edith Cavell was hit by 1 bullet from her WW1 German firing squad. Many similar cases were reported. One horrible account was of Germans shooting victims who were lying on the ground. A shot to the neck was ordered, but many of the police reservists shot them in the heads, resulting in explosions of brain tissue all over the shooters. In this sense, a chest shot is "cleaner." Mob hitmen do a "double tap: shoot them once in the chest, to bring them down, then once in the head to make sure. An Israli army commander called it "confirming the kill" when he fired 13 bullets into the body of a 13 year old girl after she was brought down while running away. She got two bullets to the head. The recent Tucson shootings demonstrated that even a bullet through the brain may not be fatal.

Religious fiction cliche

Hi, does anyone know of examples of a particular theme in religious fiction that I've come across a couple of times, and which I rather suspect is a cliche? I have seen a few works (one dramatic work and one novel come to mind) where characters discover a work of scripture from the religion, then suddenly convert, and have the whole meaning and purpose of their lives radically altered. Is it particularly common, and can people give me other examples? I'm not referring to books like the Left Behind series, which interpret the world through the lens of the Bible, literally interpreted, but specifically those which deal with the radical conversion theme. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to answer your main question, but Left Behind doesn't really interpret the world through the lens of the Bible, literally or otherwise. It's based on largely extra-Biblical traditions regarding the Rapture. Like many such traditions its based on an extreme, non-mainstream, overinterpretation of a select few biblical passages. There's very little agreement on even what the Rapture passages mean in the literature, or what significance they should have regarding eschatology. Really, Left Behind is a fun read, but its about as theologically solid as Raiders of the Lost Ark or Rosemary's Baby; that is it uses Christian traditions as a loose framework for story telling, but it doesn't really represent quality "theology". As far as the "Radical conversion" event, the Bible itself has one famous such event, see Conversion of Paul the Apostle. From other religions, the events surrounding the Bodhi Tree represent a similar radical conversion in the background of Buddhism, while the Cave at Hira represents a similar sort of conversion in Islam. Depending on your perspective and reading of the text, Christ himself could have had a similar "conversion", if you read the stories behind the Baptism of Jesus a certain way. --Jayron32 02:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of examples that spring to mind: Augustine of Hippo was converted after reading Romans 13:13-14; John Wesley after hearing Martin Luther's preface to the same book read aloud. Of course both had extensive knowledge of the scriptures already, so it's not as though the information was new to them. Marnanel (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you're looking for examples in fiction, but whatever cliche exists probably comes from various traditional and historical stories of conversion after reading. Maybe the earliest and most significant in the Bible is Josiah. Staecker (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems related to TV Tropes' "Easy Evangelism", which lists examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak to Christianity in general, but as a former catholic, within the catholic faith baptism is usually regarded as a necessary and vital part of conversion. as the article on catholic conversion explains, baptism in the faith is considered prerequisite to salvation. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all. The TV tropes link was good, and along the lines of what I had in mind, although I should ban people from linking to it, for I just spent about 3 hours virtually downloading the entire site :). Much too addictive... Any further examples appreciated, especially if anyone can answer the specific brief of fictional characters discovering a scriptural work and being converted primarily by that, rather than by the brilliant logic of an evangelistic character. In the examples I've seen (one was a purely amateur production, the other a minor-ish work of mostly quality literature) someone reads some holy words and "Poof" they are transformed spiritually, rather than being converted by a superior evangelist or a (presumably) logical argument. The message from those was that the holy books they encountered were so amazingly pure and magical that no one could fail to be moved by them. Not wanting to be too derisive, I didn't focus specifically on that aspect, but I would be curious to know how common it is. Thx again, It's been emotional (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooohhh. Just had an idea. Not exactly the same exact thing, but consider the story behind 2112 (song), in the section where the protagonaist discovers the guitar, has a sort of "epiphany" which could be described in the your terms for religious conversion. --Jayron32 13:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Step away from that computer. Now. CS Miller (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that was really ridiculous ... or ridiculously scary :):) but I think that's why I visit wikipedia It's been emotional (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• See Robinson Crusoe. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Roman numbers

If I'm counting in roman text, I start at (1-I) and so on till I get to (4-V)! "Lets don't forget I'm conting" After I get past (V) All (I) go to to the right Of the (V)? What if (You) I start conting backwards, Do all (I) go to Left of the The (v) till I get (0)? --Stovetop151712 (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

counting forwards: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X

counting backwards: X, IX, VIII, VII, VI, V, IV, III, II, I. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

IV is 4 and VI is 6 no matter which "direction" you're counting. It's the same as if you were counting with what you commonly use. 4 and 6 don't change what they look like depending on which way you're going. Dismas|^(talk) 09:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If that was a reply to the OP, Dismas, could you please watch your indentation level in future. It looks like you're talking to me, but that wouldn't make sense since you're simply adding to what I said to the OP. High time I raised the general question of indentation on the talk page (not singling you out here). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a style guide for indentation for ref desks? One way of looking at it is that Dismas is adding to or elaborating on your answer, instead of talking to you specifically. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I had never seen that guideline. I was replying to the OP and not you Jack. More often than not, I've seen replies indented one more level even when replying to the OP as I was doing. Dismas|^(talk) 01:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Some few editors may have established a style guide that says "No more indenting if you are replying to the same thing as the previous post" but common practice is to indent another step even when you are replying to the original poster. If the indentation is the same, then it is a good idea to add a space. Otherwise the two posts run together and seem to be from the same person. It is really not a big deal, and does not require rebuking the person whose indentation compliance with the MOS is imperfect. Let's all get along. Edison (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course if you are counting out loud (up or down), you would not use the roman numeral text at all, but would use the Latin words... Unas, Duo, Tres, Quattor, Quinque, Sex, Septem, Octo, Novem, Decem, etc. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, do you have a source for "Unas" and "Quattor"? They disagree with http://www.informalmusic.com/latinsoc/latnum.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

4 is Quattuor. "Unas" could be an indefinite feminine accusative plural form, but the normal absolute form of the number 1 used in counting etc. was "unum". AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

US presidential line of succession - who becomes Speaker of House?

Hello! A quick question: In the US, if the Speaker of the House becomes president, who fills his shoes as Speaker of the House? Or is there no replacement; the two jobs just coincide? Until, I take it, a new election is held? Thank you for any answers. 88.90.16.147 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible for the President to simultaneously be the Speaker. The President has the power of veto over laws, so to preside over one of the chambers where laws are created in the first place would represent the greatest conflict of interests in recorded history. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of power, but I don't see how it's a "conflict of interest". Note that the vice president, who in most administrations does pretty much what the president tells him to (though this is tradition rather than anything in the Constitution) is president of the Senate.

I do believe it's true, however, that you are not allowed to be simultaneously president and a member of Congress. I'm not sure where that requirement lives. --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be covered somewhere in Separation of powers under the United States Constitution. But how could it not be a conflict of interests? The House passes a bill and the Speaker/President then just vetoes it before it ever gets to the Senate for consideration: what a dumb system that would be. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not just sure how that would work. The president can't veto a bill until it's been passed by both houses and presented to him for consideration. The speaker has no veto power at all. In any case I don't see how it's a conflict of interest, which generally refers to a situation where someone has a fiduciary duty to two interested parties whose interests conflict, or who has a personal interest in conflict with those of someone to whom he has a fiduciary responsibility. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, we have something about it at Ineligibility Clause. Also referenced in The West Wing, when John Goodman's character Glen Allen Walken becomes Acting President after the invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I'm a little confused about the overlap between the 25th amendment and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The House of Representatives would elect a new Speaker. In practice, the selection would be made by the caucus of the majority party in the House. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The selection of candidate would be made by the majority party leadership but the election is a normal vote of the entire House. It isn't really a problem to not have a Speaker for a few hours. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• The House rules for the 111th Congress are at the GPO website (and I'm sure they'll post the 112th's rules in a few weeks). Rule 1 authorizes the Speaker to create a list of temporary (pro tempore) speakers who can run parliamentary business when the Speaker is unavailable. If the Speaker ends up being removed from office (such as to become President), then as a formal matter, the first person on the pro tempore list takes over for the purpose of conducting the House's election for the next speaker. As the above answerers note, as a practical matter the majority party's leadership oversees the vote, at least during times (such as the last couple of decades) when the parties are well-disciplined. --M@rēino 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • It should also be noted that, by tradition, the role of the Speaker of the House has been split among several functions, and they are rarely exercised by the same person at the same time. While the speaker is nominally the leader of the majority party, most of the footwork done in that role is handled by the whip. The speaker also nominally serves as the presiding officer of the house, but in practice often delegates the role to someone else. The actual speaker rarely serves as the presiding officer except during very important occasions. Even during important votes, they often delegate to a senior member of their own party; during usual business the role is often handed to freshman congressmen to give them valuable experience in the operation of the House. There's really nothing that the Speaker does which is irreplacable, at least for a few days during the transition of power. When the House isn't in session, the Speaker's only vital, official role is te be alive until the President and Vice President die. Presumably, when the house meets after such an event their first order of business would be to elect a new Speaker, as they do after each election cycle. --Jayron32 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If the Speaker became Acting President during the incapacity of a President while no Vice President was available, the President might regain the capacity to serve (as if recovering from a stroke, heart attack, or injury), In the relevant West Wing episode, the President temporarily stepped down because his daughter had been kidnapped by terrorists, and he was unable to respond to their demands both as a father and as a leader. If a President were taken hostage somewhere,as has happened in fiction a similar situation might obtain. A person in the line of succession has the option of refusing. The possibility of a future political career would help induce someone to accept the Presidency when it might be only for a short time, like a temporarily disabled President or a death near the end of the term leading to a lame duck Presidency after someone else has been elected for the next term. It seems a hardship for a career politician to give up the powerful position of Speaker just to act as President for a short time, but the law seems to require he resign as US Representative, not just as Speaker. There would be a special election to replace him as Representative from his district. A former Speaker and ex-Acting President would likely be a shoo-in to be reelected, making him the most junior member of the House. There is no reason he could nopt be reelected as Speaker. John Quincy Adams was re-elected to the House and served for 17 years after serving as an elected President, and Andrew Johnson was re-elected to the Senate after succeeding to the Presidency when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and after surviving an impeachment, and served briefly before dying. Edison (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The confusing thing about the The West Wing episode is that it involved the procedures from the 25th amendment, which (unless I missed something) does not mention any line of succession past the vice president. The stuff about the speaker of the House all comes from the 1947 act. That the 25th-amendment procedures would extend through the entire line of succession is sort of plausible, I guess, but the amendment itself says nothing about it, and the procedures from the 1947 act are less detailed. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The confusing thing about The West Wing episode is solely the fact that it is a work of fiction, and people are trying to draw real-world relevence from a work of fiction. The writers are under no requirement to get the legal ramifications of their writing correct, or even close. They have one purpose and one purpose only: to tell a story which is entertaining enough to make you watch some commercials. That is all they are trying to do. There is zero connection between that purpose and what would actually happen in an analogous situation. Confusion arises when people ask too much of their fiction, such as expecting it to be non-fiction. --Jayron32 14:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a category of fiction that attempts to be accurate about this sort of thing, and The West Wing is in that category. --Trovatore (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you imagine that the writers just made up the whole idea of the Speaker becoming President, or of the President signing a letter that he was temporarily stepping down? Read the relevant portions of US law and you will see that there is indeed the line of succession as shown in the TV show. The process corresponds to published scenarios of what would happen absent a serving Vice President. On what basis do you claim there is "zero connection?" What other procedure do your reliable sources state the relevant laws call for? (The office remains vacant and there is no national executive? Some General takes command? Cabinet officers take turns in the Oval Office? The President's wife fills in unofficially as Mrs. Wilson did after Wilson's stroke?) Granted toward the end of Franklin Roosevelt's and Ronald Reagan's presidencies, there were reportedly times when they were not really up the demands of the office, but their families and staffs pretended all was well, just as in the Wilson presidency after his stroke. It would be possible for the handlers to restrict access, perhaps releasing only an occasional written communication or video filmed under carefully controlled circumstances when the invalid was feeling up to reading some text for the camera. Various world leaders have been handled like that: Leonid Brezhnev, Francisco Franco and Mao Zedong. Edison (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cabinet officers take turns in the Oval Office?... that is actually not that far fetched... I forget when they changed things, but until fairly recently the line of succession did go through the Cabinet Secretaries before it went to the Speaker of the House (the order of succession was determined by precedence, based on the date of creation of the Cabinet office... example: the Sect. of State was senior to the Sect. of the Interior, and thus senior in line to be President). As to fiction... I think the point was that West Wing didn't have to follow reality... While they happened to base their story on reality, they were free to ignore the details if the story required them to do so. So it is not a reliable guide to what the law says. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable guide, no. But neither are they free to ignore details. The West Wing is in a category of fiction, similar to hard science fiction, that is expected to get things right, and if they don't then that's just an error. There are classes of details that are allowed to be different in their alternative universe (elections happen on 2 mod 4 years; there are countries that don't exist in our world) but this is not one of them. --Trovatore (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

how many trees needed to make A4 paper?

--59.189.218.40 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How much A4 paper? A single sheet? Pais (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Googling your question gives almost 56 million results. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

looking for a ratio. like 1 tree can produce how many sheets or 1 sheet needs how many trees. can use Google but many of the answers there are not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.40 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This site (which looks pretty reliable, and is fourth on my search above) gives about 8,300+ sheets from one tree. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously it varies from tree to tree and what kind of paper you are making, but most sources when you google it agree it's about 8500. 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Prokhorovka (talk)

Tea Party Movement/2010 US Mid Term Elections

At the moment I am about to commence research for a thesis on the polarisation of the political scene within the United States of America. My main topic of interest and research will be primarily on the 1994 and 2010 Mid Term elections as case study examples and some chapters explaining the cause and effect of Polarisation. However with recent sources I am struggling to find reliable articles and books. Does anyone know any reliable sources of information on the Tea Party Movement and perhaps a guide analysing the 2010 US Mid Terms Elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.20.162 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Though most of them are newspaper articles, you could start with the references for this section of this article. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out Jill Lepore's recent book (The Whites of their Eyes) on the Tea Party movement — she is a great scholar, a great writer, and very perceptive. As for a general framework on the 1994 election, George Lakoff's Moral Politics is something I found quite useful. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

See also this article by Gordon S. Wood for a critique of Lepore's book. This is Wood in a familiar mode: when a historian (like Lepore) allows political views to shape historical analysis, Wood often points out that the result is bad history. Given the polemical nature of Lepore's book (according to Wood, she exhibits "academic contempt" for "ordinary citizens"), if I were writing a paper about the "polarisation of the political scene within the United States", I'd cite Lepore as an example of that polarisation. —Kevin Myers 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there an International Day for Physically Disabled / Special Needs people?

If so, what date is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.40 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE, International Day of Persons with Disabilities. In short, December 3rd. Prokhorovka (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What type of disabilities does this day cover? Only physical disabilities or also special needs conditions such as autism and epilepsy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.40 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The UN page is unclear, feel free to e-mail them and ask. Prokhorovka (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article has an external link to UN Enable - International Day of Persons with Disabilities - 3 December 2008, whose FAQ page answers the question "What is disability and who are persons with disabilities?" as follows: "The term persons with disabilities is used to apply to all persons with disabilities including those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various attitudinal and environmental barriers, hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." [sic]

—Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Curses, I spent ages reading FAQs on that site, how did I miss that! Prokhorovka (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)