Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 27

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 27

Patronage in Renaissance Italy (science)

I am having difficulty determining two things (from authoritative sources):
1.) What distinction (if any) was there between being a patron of an artist, and being a patron of a scientist? There are plenty of sources regarding the patronage of artists, but I am uneasy making the assumption that the same applies to scientists.
2.) How to make the distinction between a formal (contractual?) patronage (per Baxandall, et al) and the informal definition of patronage (Wolf, et al) — or is such a distinction irrelevant or non-existent?

Specifically, how to distinguish among the "patrons" of Galileo; some perhaps, merely being supporters of higher status; other(s) may have formally had specific (expressed or implied?) obligations and responsibilities.
—Any assistance or clarification appreciated; thanks, ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There really wasn't the distinction between artists and scientists which exists now. Leonardo da Vinci, for example, was both. The term Renaissance Man reflects this. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Or rather, there wasn't such a thing as a scientist. There were natural philosophers, but there was not seen to be hard divisions between different areas of scholarship. --ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I read in an article in Sciam many years ago that the pope funded much of Galileo's research, and was considered his patron. Among projects that were paid for by the pope were some of his writings on Copernican ideas. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be (future-Pope) Cardinal Barberini (See discussion above) I don't suppose you have a ref for that Sciam article? ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am really sorry but I do not. I made a quick search on Sciam. It might(!) have been

"Galileo and the Specter of Bruno." Scientific American (November 1986)". Also, the one project I thought was paid for by the pope, I looked up now in Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems and it seems the patron here was Ferdinando II de' Medici. So I was wrong there, and may have misremembered the whole thing. 1986 is a long time ago for a memory. But perhaps this references and the article about the book is a place to start searching, anyway. DanielDemaret (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Galileo_affair mentions another patron, Cosimo II de' Medici. DanielDemaret (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

http://galileo.rice.edu/galileo.html has a list of patrons.

Galileo's Patrons: Duke of Mantua, Medici Family, Paolo Sarpi, Urban VIII, Federico Cesi. At least one pope in there. Urban VIII. It may be that I understood Urban VIII as being his patron and extrapolated to that meaning he also paid for the book. It may be that his patronage only extended to his permission to write the book. DanielDemaret (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone!  —  Pope Urban VIII was an early patron, when he was Cardinal Barberini; Duke of Mantua (Vincenzo Gonzaga) failed to come to terms regarding a formal patronage.[1]. As it stands, the newly-added list of patrons for Galileo's infobox seems to be good, but I might request a minor change (after a little more checking).  ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 

[@DanielDemaret: I added commas to your list for readability]

Can IOTV this bulletproof vest through Cadana/US(CA State) customs?

I have an IOTV vest in France.I am going to ship it to Cadana or US first,(Chinese customs won't work on our spring festival...) then ship it to HongKong.Finally,it will be in Chinese mainland. I don't know my plan is or isn't legal in Canada or(and) US law. I checked the Wikipedia,it says:"Is illegal to possess body armour without a licence (unless exempted) issued by the provincial government.",but if I ship it to US first I am worried about can I ship this IOTV made by POINT BLANK out...... Hope you can tell me sth about these laws,or give me any suggest.....Thx.. And,please upload suggest to my talk in Chinese Wikipedia.Thx very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axmaxmaxm3 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Call the appropriate customs authorities. We don't give legal advice. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of Criminal Charges in the US that End in a Plea Bargain

I'm looking for a reliable source for the number of criminal cases in the US that end in a plea bargain rather than going to trial. The best I've found so far is this document which contains the line:

During Fiscal Year 2010, a total of 79,260, or 97 percent, of all convicted defendants pled guilty prior to or during trial. This represents a less than one percent increase in the percentage of convicted defendants who pled guilty when compared to the prior year.

Which makes it sound that only 3% of federal cases go to trail. Am I reading that right? --CGPGrey (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I have heard similar figures. I remember a documentary where a lawyer said that he was concerned that the possible penalty for not accepting a plea bargain was so great that there were probably some innocent people accepting the plea bargain. I understand that prosecutors offer better deals where evidence is weaker, exacerbating this possibility. - Q Chris (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There are certainly some who say they were frightening into it. See Tina Resch. There's even the odd phenomenon of the Alford plea, which involves admitting guilt as part of a plea bargain, while continuing to maintain your innocence. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are reading this right. I understand it as that among the convicted (81720) 97% pleaded guilty. That doesn't mean that there were not 100,000 who pleaded innocent, went to trial but didn't get convicted. Besides that, some of the guilty pleas were during trial, so your figure of 3% is also not necessarily true. At least the text snip above doesn't say otherwise. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

From the source, in 2010, 88,369 defendants had their cases terminated (one way or the other). Of those "88,369 defendants terminated during Fiscal Year 2010, 81,934, or 93 percent, either pled guilty or were found guilty" and "79,260, or 97 percent, of all convicted defendants pled guilty prior to or during trial". So it looks like 89.7 percent of all defendants pled guilty prior to or during trial. But also 6,435 (88,369-81,934) did not either pled guilty or were not found guilty. The source also mentions that only "3,056, or three percent" went to trial, so they must have just dropped charges against at least 3,380 of them, because otherwise that doesn't add up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, our article Plea bargain mentions 90% of all case in america and cites Alschuler, Albert W. (1979). Plea Bargaining and Its History. Vol. 79. pp. 1–43. JSTOR 1122051. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help) Plea bargaining in the United States only mentions federal statistics which you have. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was in 1979. this article mentions 97% for federal case and 94% for state cases and this report claims (under the section background) "While there are no exact estimates of the proportion of cases that are resolved through plea bargaining, scholars estimate that about 90 to 95 percent of both federal and state court cases are resolved through this process (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005; Flanagan and Maguire, 1990)." Richard-of-Earth (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That BJA article is what I think I'm going to end up relying on. --CGPGrey (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that with most petty crimes for "the 99%", the accused does the sentence first; then he is placed on trial, and as long as he says he did it, they let him go for "time served"; otherwise, they put him in jail for a very long time for saying he's innocent. I wonder what proportion of the cases that makes up? Wnt (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

, I think. Rmhermen (talk)

Well, the lawyers wouldn't say they serve the sentence before the trial, but that they were arrested and in jail awaiting trial. Of course, to the prisoner, this distinction isn't very important. StuRat (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Conrad Black says "Those who do exercise their constitutional right to a defense receive three times as severe a sentence as those who plead guilty; 95 percent of cases are won by prosecutors, 90 percent of those without trial." http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284274/justice-denied-conrad-black μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

starting a company

Request for Legal Advice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
for my company can i give same name of other company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.49.91 (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC) That will depend on the laws of your location. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC) I am not sure what you are asking. Is it: can I name my new company with the name of an existing company? OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC) In the UK, you may *not* register a company with the same name as a company that is already registered (there is an exception for companies that are part of the same group). And "the same name" includes minor variations such as repalcing "AND" by &, adding or removing a final "S", or adding or removing "UK". The relevant legislation is The Company and Business Names (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2009. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this Reference Desk does not give legal advice. Rojomoke (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What do cops do with 2,997 gasoline-soaked Korans???

I suppose this is a question of law ... or literature ... so I'll ask here. In all the coverage of Terry Jones (pastor)'s protest, I never could find an answer to the burning question of just what exactly police do with a trailer loaded with 2,997 Korans soaked in gasoline. I mean, is there somewhere they can legally store that kind of fire hazard? Or ... do they have to dispose of it somehow? And if so... how? Wnt (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no law prohibiting them from just being burned is there? 71.246.148.184 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I know of ... yet it would be an amusing thing to confirm, wouldn't it? Wnt (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, I should point out that Wnt has linked the wrong Terry Jones. I don't think the former Monty Python member has ever threatened to set fire to religious texts, though the Pythons taste in comedy certainly tended towards the sacrilegious on occasion. The would-be incendarist is Terry Jones (pastor). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From what I read of the incident, there isn't anything illegal about the burning of Korans. It's just in bad taste. If the local police were smart, they asked the local imam or other official at the nearest mosque how they would like to deal with gas soaked holy books. That way if there's fallout, the police can just say that they asked the nearest religious figure and did as they were told. Dismas|^(talk) 21:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Muslims destroy Korans all the time. There are many helpful pages out there telling you how to destroy your old or damaged Koran with due respect [2] [3]. There's some discussion of this in Quran desecration. Paul B (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that... but then the police would take flack because they ostensibly seized a trailer as a fire hazard and now they're asking imams how to dispose of it. If there weren't so many ways that any choice they made would cause a problem down the line, it wouldn't be funny. :) Wnt (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's unlikely that there could be a law in America prohibiting the private burning of a specific object. However, many communities have laws against "open burning" of anything, so the torchers would probably have to go through some legal hoops. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that between the Fire Marshals and a local Imam, the authorities could quickly find out how to deal with the fire hazard... while at the same time giving proper respect to the religious nature of that hazard. It may even be that burning is the most appropriate way to dispose of them, given the situation... and that the key is to do so with appropriate ceremony and respect. (in that it would be like dealing with a trailer full of gas soaked American Flags.) Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also to consider is that there is a crime on the books in many U.S. jurisdictions called Disturbing the peace which allows police to stop many actions which either are, or are likely to, cause disruption to the public order. So, while it may not be a crime to "burn a Quran" in the U.S., it may very well be a crime to burn a shitload of Qurans in a public place with the intent to insult or upset a large group of people while doing so. --Jayron32 03:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to get sidetracked on well-worn arguments about the protest, but I'm less interested in hypothetical overreaches than what the cops actually did with the Korans once they had them in their possession. Wnt (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the source cited for this in our article, [4] it isn't entirely clear that Jones ever actually had 2,998 (not 2997) Korans soaked in gasoline in the trailer - he was charged with "unlawful conveyance of fuel", which is less than specific. furthermore, I can't locate a source which states what eventually become of the charges, and whether it actually came to court. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This source [5] says "unlawful conveyance of fuel for pulling a cooker on a trailer filled with kerosene-soaked Qurans" and also that he plead not guilty but was still trying to reach a plea bargain. This source [6] says he told the police he planned to presoak them and they didn't object but now say the presoaked books were a danger. It also includes an image I think of the trailer but not clear the Qurans are presoaked or when the image was taken. I don't see anything in what I think is his official Twitter about the case recently [7] so unless keeping silent was part of the pleabargain (which I'm not sure is allowed), it seems likely the case is unresolved. For some reason his official site [[8] demands a password. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I suppose the issue really starts the moment the police stopped him. Surely they didn't pull the trailer along behind one of their vehicles..... that would be illegal. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm the only one but realise I partly misunderstood the sources. I thought both a cooker and the Qurans were on the trailer seperately. I know realise that the Qurans were actually in the cooker. This is mentioned in this source [9] and is more obvious if you look at some of the other photos [10] [11] [12] [13]. The first source I linked to actually shows it as well albeit before he started driving it and I misunderstood what it was saying. The cooker is various described as a smoker, barbeque grill and other things was according to one of the sources, rented. This source [14] confirms that they may need to keep everything as evidence and plan to consult with local imams if they have to dispose of the Qurans.

While I agree that their problem would start the moment they confiscated the stuff, we perhaps shouldn't overestimate the difficulties faced. Without getting in to the rights and wrongs, while transporting kerosene may be dangerous but it's not like it's something that's never done legally. I mean I'm presuming that in the US, as with much of the rest of the world, there must be many tankers transporting the in many ways more dangerous petrol (gasoline) to petrol stations daily and also for other purposes. (The standards for random people carrying random stuff in their car often differ, according to someone here [15], even carrying a '5 gallon' container of petrol may not be allowed in some cases. I'm not BTW agreeing with anything there in particular but I suspect the container bit can be verified.)

Some minor speculation, I would guess putting them inside a truck certified to carry highly flammable materials with the appropriate markings, driver training etc would be one option. A simpler option since this is a one off emergency may be transporting them under police escort, perhaps with an appropriate fire service escort (according to the sources, one of the state concerns was a collision).

As for long term storage, I'm guessing it's possible. I couldn't find any info on paper soaked with kerosene but there's some info on cotton or rags soaked with kerosene [16] or petrol [17] or solvent or oil [18]. Cotton does I think have a much higher autoignition temperature so it's not totally the same, although I'm not sure how much of a concern that is. The risks are clearly a lot less than while in transport where collisions or perhaps even a spark from the road somehow entering the closed cooker may be a concern.

Anyway from those sources I imagine one option is a closed but vented container away from anything flammable, heat sources or temperatures around 37 degrees C (flash point of kerosene). Over time, the kerosene will evaporate (not sure how long but [19] may provide clues) so while the Qurans may not be usable or totally safe, I suspect they won't be that much of a concern after a while (probably well before now). It's not like we're talking about high halflife nuclear waste here.

The cost may be a bit high but I guess if they win the case or perhaps in the even of a plea bargain, Terry Jones will be the one paying for it. Of course if I were Terry Jones, I would have tried to find out these details, how they were transported, stored etc as it may help in my case (but from below, I'm not sure he's going to think of this). However as dumb as some of the things the police seem to do sometimes, we also shouldn't underestimate them, e.g. I remember in the balloon boy hoax, they did actually check it was theoretically possible from the information provided (which turned out to be wrong and so it wasn't possible).

Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow... if nothing else, you've convinced me that I haven't just missed it. Whatever the police did/are doing with those Korans, they seem to have made sure nobody found out. I wonder if Jones has requested the information and if they're stonewalling him along with everyone else.

I understand about the risks ... there is, however, a big difference between reality and regulation. As Jones discovered, in the 'public eye' just about anything is not merely illegal, but extraordinarily so. As a society we may pointedly ignore the low-income folks who live across from the ever-present smell of the filling station, but in regulatory theory, gasoline contains a substantial fraction of benzene, a carcinogen, and so leaving the container in an impound lot would surely be an unacceptable hazard. Similarly I'm aware that gasoline and diesel are not drying oils with polyunsaturated bonds that slowly react with oxygen at room temperature, and so they do not create the spontaneous ignition hazard that comes up when someone uses tung oil or linseed oil on wooden furniture or in painting, etc.; but most people are simply taught in school that 'oily rags' cause spontaneous combustion, without any discussion of the distinction. Wnt (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(EC) One point of consideration, while I'm not an expert on US law, I suspect that if Terry Jones challenged the seizure, they the Qurans would have had to be kept until any case wound through the court, unless of course they were couldn't be safely kept (which as stated by several, is obviously easily possible). Also, note that as per our article and most sources, the number of Qurans was 2998 no 2997.

This number is an interesting figure as Terry Jones is quoted as saying there was one for every victim. According to Casualties of the September 11 attacks and September 11 attacks, the official immediate death toll is 2996 which includes the 19 hijackers. I guess Terry Jones may consider them the victims of the 'evil religion' as well or something.

Either way why two more? The later article mentions two victims have been added to the death toll in some official sources as their deaths are considered to have been linked to dust exposure. But the former article mentions 3 victims. The last one was added in 2011 (died 2010) well before the 2013 event. So it would seem that there should be 2999 not 2998 if he was following that (presuming the former article is up to date).

Jones could be calculating it another way, but I'm not sure what. According to [20], the number of known 'unborn babies' is 10 or 11. Even if you add the 6 victims of the 1993 attack plus the one missing recently added victim I mentioned earlier, you end up with 18 so, not enough to make up for the missing onehijackers. Now the source doesn't mention the precise phrasing for each one so it's possible one of them implies twins but I'm not convinced.

I suspect the most likely thing is what I suggested earlier i.e. Jones is including the hijackers, probably not intentionally and the 2 extra victims but his source didn't include the 2011 one. I suspect he doesn't even know about the 2 extra victims and just took some number he found somewhere, most quotes of him say he said something like 'one for every victim who died in the attacks' or 'was murdered in the attacks' [21] or similar.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetical Population Scenarios for Various Countries

I have previously found this paper/article/study (see here: http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol4/9/4-9.pdf) which tries to figure out what Russia's population would have been without all of the disturbances which occurred during the 20th and early 21st centuries. Have any similar papers/articles/studies been done for any other countries? I am not talking about population projections here, but rather about papers/articles/studies which try to figure out what a specific/certain country's population would have hypothetically been if certain events had not occurred. Futurist110 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty large stretch, but there was a role-playing game called Cyborg Commando that devoted many pages to how to convert then-current population counts to post-apocalyptic numbers (and was much criticized for it). It might refer to methodologies or have a list of sources. Here is the relevant article: Cyborg_Commando. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)