Humanities desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 11 >

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.

December 10

Presumption of innocence and the Nazis

How far did the Nazis apply the principle of presumption of innocence? If they suspected someone was Jewish, communist, or whatever they deemed inferior, how much possibility of defense did these people have? Was it possible that someone who was not at all Jewish would end in a concentration camp with a yellow star on his breast?OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the blood citizenship aspects had to be based on evidence either way. See e.g. Aryan certificate and Ahnenpass. I don't know what they did if you couldn't establish evidence; that's an interesting question. They put a lot of work into generating this sort of evidence, though, aided by unusually complete censuses that had been conducted during the Weimar period. This category is very different from the Communist or disabled categories, which had their own rules and regulations I suspect. The categories for compulsory sterilization, and the procedures for establishing whether someone fit them, were extremely baroque and involved testimony from doctors and expert witnesses. In theory there was a presumption of innocence there but it was very much at the discretion of the experts and the judges in the "health courts." There was an appeals process but it was largely ignored. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some have claimed that Hitler himself wouldn't have been able to assemble adequate paperwork documentation on four fully-Germanic grandparents under the Nuremberg Laws... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George V of Hanover

Why were no nations willing to intervene and restore George V of Hanover and other rulers back on the throne after 1866? I know Britain didn't want to tangle itself up with any continental affairs, but didn't Prussia's annexation of those many states including Hanover after the Austro-Prussian War disturb the balance of power.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Franco-Prussian war was in some ways Napoleon III's effort to take Prussia down a peg or two, and that didn't turn out too well... Also, as we discussed before, George was not a personally too appealing figure.AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "balance of power" issue: Much of Europe saw a strong Prussia as desirable, as it provided a balance of power to offset Austria in the south and France to the west. See also Unification of Germany and German question which has some background. The little tiny German kingdoms of North Germany saw the Franco-Prussian war as a clear sign that being part of Prussia was more desirable as Prussia provided a strong defense. It was a case of standing together or falling apart. --Jayron32 13:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; a few short decades earlier, the first Napoleon had been able to dominate Germany by divide-and-conquer tactics. Nobody wanted his nephew to repeat the trick. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction and Chapter 1 of this source are overwritten but somewhat enlightening. Essentially, the British government favored the Prussian-led project to unify Germany, since a unified Germany would counterbalance the imperial ambitions of France and Russia. While Britain probably would have preferred that Hanover's king could have had a status like that of the king of Bavaria in a German federal state, Britain was not willing to risk antagonizing a rising Prussia (its historic ally) by intervening militarily on Hanover's behalf. (To the extent that dynastic concerns still mattered, while Queen Victoria was not pleased that her cousin George V was deposed in Hanover, she was pleased that her eldest daughter was the consort of the crown prince of an increasingly powerful Prussia.) Marco polo (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taş Suret

There is an eroded statue of the goddess Cybele in Mount Sipylus called the Taş Suret. Is there any better photograph of the this structure; you can barely make them out in these images or the one wikipedia has File:KybeleStatue19thCenturyPostcardMountSipylusManisaTurkey.jpg. Is there any archaeological reconstruction sketches of the statue? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly good, but facial features are virtually non-existent. Perhaps the face was damaged already in 1842 when this image was made. The website just followed a likely erroneous original description, calling it a "Statue of Niobe" (just like in File:KybeleStatue19thCenturyPostcardMountSipylusManisaTurkey.jpg). Brandmeister^talk 15:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

statute of limitatations myth of "riding it out"

there is certainly this myth that you can "ride out" crimes due to the statute of limitations. is there any validity to this myth - e.g. people who have done it? Or does it not work that way?

I mean, it seems like the statute of limitations would kind of work like this: you see a guy flash a suitcase full of cash or something, but the bag is suspiciuosly like yours, but you just have gym underwear in there. and when he's not looking you just lift it and keep walking. at home you throw it into your attic and juts forget about the whole thing (all this on purpose).

if they come find you based on your gym drawers, you confess and say, wait, what! say you don't know where you left yours... then after everyone leaves you can find it again.

but suppose, as is likely, that nobody finds you based on your gym drawers. So, you've just committed this theft in pubilc air and and are in possession but not rightful ownership of, say, $4M or whatever. Now doesn't it work like this: just by keeping it in your attic "in plain sight" doesn't the value detiorate by inflation plus your lost interest at the risk-free rate of return, however your utility increases by the fact that you are less and less likely to get caught.

and then when you cross the 7 years or whatever, suddenly it drops to 0!. So, you have "free" $4M just by forgeting it for x years. The day the x years runs out you can remember and have a guilty mind, and start using your ill-gotten goods.

you can call the DA's office (but wouldn't) and say, hey what's up, I committed this super-crime in plane daylight x years ago, too bad the time has run out.

then what? So, this is the myth. does it happen? has it happened? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one problem with that is that the statute of limitations doesn't start counting until the crime is reported and the report is filed. I'm not sure what happens if it's never reported. If you are on camera making the exchange, this might make it rather obvious you stole it, and keeping your "clothes" in the suitcase for 7 years is also rather suspicious behavior. You might also find the owner is a drug dealer who will track you down, kill you, and take the money back. Or, it might be counterfeit, and you will get arrested whenever you try to spend it, as the crime is actually spending it. StuRat (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"doesn't start counting until the crime is reported." No, this is wrong. Usually the clock starts when the actual offense occurred — not when it was reported. This is an issue with prosecuting certain crimes because for various reasons one might not report them for decades later, after the statute of limitations has passed. If it were about reporting the offense this wouldn't be an issue. In general though these things are legally complicated and vary by jurisdiction. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the crime and on the country and on what moment we start counting. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may get you using something like continuing violations, where the possession of stolen property (keeping the money in you attic) is a continuing crime and thus the statute of limitation timer has never started. --Daniel (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a crime only has a statute of limitations if it is a misdemeanor anyway. Theft and/or larceny for anything over a few hundred dollars tends to be a felony (unless you're already rich, for some reason). At least in the US, you'd also have to make sure that you never had any court dealings in those years "riding it out" in which money might be a factor (because the statute of limitations can be reset or thrown out if any member of the court can begin to say that you lied). The time limit on a statute of limitations may also be suspended, and I could imagine that someone who had $4 million stolen wold plead with a judge to enact that. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get your information. Of course it depends on jurisdiction, but from a quick web search my general impression is that most felonies have statutes of limitations. For example, in California, this link (warning: may not be reliable) claims that "[m]urder and other offenses that are punishable by death or life in prison, have no statute of limitations", but mentions no other exclusions.

There are, of course, lots of other pitfalls. Previous posters have mentioned some of them. Other possibilities are that you might be considered to have filed false income tax returns if you didn't report the money as "income" (and if you did report it, presumably you had to come up with the tax money somehow at a time when you couldn't actually spend the money you took). Also, as I understand it, we're just talking about criminal statutes of limitations — the person you stole it from could still have a civil claim and take it all back, assuming he can reveal to the legal system how he got the money. This is all speculation on my part — I'm not a lawyer and no one should rely on this in any way. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much wrong information in the very few replies above, it's really depressing. Mr 98's completely right, "reporting" generally has nothing to do with it, however active concealment might. Continuing violations are another example. And then state specific jurisdictions have all sorts of rules. Some crimes where the victim is incapacitated in some way (children, for instance) "toll" the statute of limitations until they're able to recognize the crime, legally speaking. And then some crimes have no statute of limitations, like murder, treason, certain sexual crimes or those with specific evidence. Ian is also horribly wrong, at least as far as the U.S. goes.

I know we all like to chime in when we have some knowledge of the situation, but you guys are making it sound like you know what you're talking about and you're not hedging those statements at all. If you want to read the actual federal (US) law go here. Note that has nothing to do with state law crimes, nor does it speak to the myriad of court decisions about continuing offenses (fraud and conspiracy typically). Please don't try to give certainty when you're not. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, we have these articles too: Statute of limitations and statute of repose. I don't know how good they are. Shadowjams (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, would you mind being clearer as to what information is or isn't wrong? It's impolite to simply assert that everyone is wrong except you without specifically addressing each wrong point. As you mention our Statute of Limitations article as if I had not linked it at all, I have to ask if you read my post before making a blanket statement about everyone in this discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, specifically, felonies are very much within the statute of limitations. Shadowjams (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I started my sentence with "Usually." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that still appears to be wrong. See my response to you above. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like Trovatore says, it's not "usually" by any stretch. I see a lot of this kind of unresearched speculation at the ref desk, and sometimes it's meaningless, but sometimes it gives the impression of certainty when it's outright wrong. I'm sure most of us who've commented here have made mistakes from time to time, but we really need to discourage this kind of unfounded speculation. Shadowjams (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about statute of limitation are not uncommon here. For me, the only acceptable answer is a vague "it depends." OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would the IRS go after this junior Bonnie or Clyde for not reporting the "income"? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip M. Parker's 'outlook' and 'report' books...

Some of the subjects that Parker (whom one could probably legitimately say actually has actually authored more books than he's ever read without it being a diss!) has created 'Outlook' books about seem so esoteric - e.g. "The 2007-2012 World Outlook for Frozen Concentrated Lemonade Weighing Less Than 10 and More Than 13 Ounces", The 2007-2012 Outlook for Public Building Stacking Chairs Excluding Bar, Bowling Center, Cafeteria, Library, Restaurant, and School Stacking Chairs in India, The 2007 Report on Wood Poles, Piles, and Posts More Than 15 Feet in Length Owned and Treated with Pentachlorophenol by the Same Establishment: World Market Segmentation by City that I find myself thinking as to whether there are any human beings alive who could possibly wish to own such a book.

It just got me wondering... has anyone here ever heard of anyone buying and utilizing one of these expensive tomes (yeah, I'm aware that people do buy his crossword and medical books) - which currently cost either £495 or £795 each on Amazon.co.uk, for any serious purpose? I don't suppose that many people will be buying them as gag gifts or conversation pieces either, considering the price of them. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found an interview with Parker where he says "(What is your most popular title? How many copies were sold?) Our trade reports, which are purchased by consulting firms, investment banks, and companies involved in international trade. This series is very popular. We gauge sales by series, not by individual titles." and "Some firms subscribe to all titles. Again, we often sell series. Some [titles] sell hundreds, some sell just a few, as a part of a series sale. The prices seen on Amazon are one-off — we sell few or none of these." and "ICON Group as a whole makes no “profit” — all resources are plowed into R&D for new genres." 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found this interview with Parker after I posted my question, where he pretty much says the same thing. He doesn't come across like the evil spammer/dodgy person that some on the interweb have painted him as. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar panel dumping

US[1] and EU[2] are accusing Chinese solar panel makers of dumping. China is accusing US[3] and EU[4] companies of the same thing. Where can I find a non-partial third party analysis of the situation? Dncsky (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make economic sense for the US or EU to dump solar panels in China. Because of the population of China, the amount of money required to subsidize the US and EU solar panel industries would be prohibitive, and neither is in financial shape to fund such a huge project. China, on the other hand, has a huge pile of cash reserves. I suspect that China is just making that part up to distract from their dumping. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion but I'm looking for a professional, preferably academic, third party analysis.Dncsky (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This story quotes a (US) prof who views the tariffs with dismay. It's an interesting analysis to read while we search for what you have asked for. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prof's publications are here. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here you go (I hope): China’s Greentech Programs and the USTR Investigation by Joel Eisen. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clearing up confusion about a return voyage and scrapping

I need help clearing up confusion. What I'm confused with is how could Willie Morris and his family sail back to the USA aboard the SS Île de France in 1960, if the vessel was scrapped in 1959?142.255.103.121 (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's the case here, but "scrapped" doesn't always means it was actually torn apart, just that it was sold for scrap. Whoever buys it can, if they choose, refurbish it instead, much like a car which has been "junked". StuRat (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found an infuriating Google Books "snippet" in Modern southern reader: major stories, drama, poetry, essays, interviews, and reminiscences from the twentieth-century South (p.604) which says; "My wife and new son and I returned to our native land in the summer of 1960. on the Isle de France to New York. Then we drove southward, for I had a ... Wee Reese were calling the action. Only my six-month-old son was..."' (Google translation).

However, this site says; "On 26 February 1959, at 10:00 am, Ile de France crosses for the last time the dykes of Havre, welcomed the horn by all ships. After an eventful life, it is sold for scrap in Japan and £450,000; for her last journey takes the name Furanza Maru" She was half-sunk as a prop for the film The Last Voyage which was released in February 1960[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be two ships with the same name ? StuRat (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that was the case. Ships at the time were better known that airplanes' names today (that no one knows even that they have names). OsmanRF34 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If tha was a memoir, then it could be a failure of his memory. Alternatively, he was writing from a South hemisphere perspective, and the summer dec/1959 jan/1960. OsmanRF34 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read a chapter from the book, "Willie Morris: An Exhaustive Annoted Bibliography and a Biography," by Jack Bales. Mr. Morris sailed from the USA to the UK aboard the SS Flandre in 1956. Four years later, he and his family sailed back from the UK to the USA aboard the SS Île de France. When I read the article about the latter ship, the confusion was started up.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible the biographer also made an error, in either the year or the ship. Almost a ship a day sailed between UK and New York in 1960 source so there are many possibilities. (Including the Empress of France).

Larry King has the same date (June 1960) for the trip in In Search of Willie Morris (searchable at Amazon) but does not mention the ship name. If you are willing to pay, Ancestry.com has ship passenger lists to 1959 and FindMyPast has similar for 1960 (the latter shows a Cecila B. Morris, born 1935, and a William W. Morris, born 1934, making a Southampton-New York voyage in 1960 (that's all you can see for free) which might be them.) If you can click on the paid link, you might get the ship name. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LIBERTE departed Southampton for New York 7 June 1960. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]