Humanities desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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.

May 29

Serhiy Tihipko

Why did Serhiy Tihipko and his Strong Ukraine party split with the Party of Regions? And was his strong showing in the Ukrainian east in the Ukrainian presidential election, 2014 (compared to the 2010 election) a repudiation of a stronger pro-Kremlin stance? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RICHARD WRIGHT

WHAT IS THE PICTURE OF ON THE COVER OF RICHARD WRIGHT'S "BLACK BOY"? 98.150.129.181 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to say which edition you mean, as there have been many. [1] --Viennese Waltz 09:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

98.150.129.181 -- If you look on the back cover, or on the page facing the title page, some books have a cover illustration credit in small print... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treason by another name, and the U.S. constitution

Section 3 of Article Three of the United States Constitution places clear limits on both what constitutes treason, and how it must be proven.

My question is, can the U.S. government simply circumvent these restrictions by naming the offence by a label other than "treason" - even if the elements of the offence involve "levying War against (the U.S.), or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"?

For example, Bradley Manning was charged with "aiding the enemy" - clearly involving "giving them aid" referred to in the constitution. Yet he was tried (and acquitted of that particular charge) by a military tribunal - clearly forbidden in treason trials. I believe other individuals have been likewise tried under laws which, whilst not labelled "treason" in the relevant statute, nonetheless contain elements which clearly involve (or are identical to) the constitutional definition referred to above.

IF the relevant requirements of the constitution can indeed be circumvented simply by calling the offence by another name, wouldn't this make Section 3, Article 3, entirely meaningless?

(PLEASE let's not get distracted by discussions of Manning's guilt or innocence, it's irrelevant to the question). 203.45.95.236 (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the point of the constitutional restrictions is to limit the possibilities for charges labelled "treason", in order to prevent people from being publicly branded as traitors based on loose or vague charges. I don't know that it restricts anything else. AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Chelsea Manning. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you for making that point, I was just about to. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be pedantic... using "Bradley" was correct in this instance... since that is the name that she was charged under. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

No one uses my old name when talking about things I did before transitioning. I doubt you would refer to a married person by their maiden name if you were talking about before they were married. It's never correct to refer to a trans person by their old name unless they have specifically said that they are okay with it. Katie R (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of maiden names happens all the time when they were famous under that name. I can't prove specific instances where they certifiably did not state whether they were okay with it, but it happens so often that it seems pedantic to worry either way. Try Evonne Goolagong Cawley, for example. I think we would help the question by accepting the choice of the OP in saying "Bradley", although individual respondents could obviously just give a polite aside, and say "Bradley, read: Chelsea", if they feel strongly. However, thanks Katie for at least being relaxed in your way of expressing your disagreement, so it doesn't become a slugfest. IBE (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ferguson has been referred to by that name (a) before, (2) during and (d) after her marriage to the Duke of York. Kate Middleton, similarly, still gets that moniker despite actually being the much grander sounding Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. The world's media went totally gaga when they got married, but immediately seem to have forgotten that such an event ever took place. Maybe it's an after-effect of being gaga. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the maiden name analogy was bad. :-P It's not a similar situation, and the problems related to using a trans person's old name have nothing to do with referring to someone by their maiden name... But I've also derailed this thread enough - it's not really the place to get deeper into trans issues. Katie R (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The solution, in either case, is to add "the former", as in "the former Bradley Manning" and "the former Kate Middleton". (I smalled all of this discussion, since it's an aside.) StuRat (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very big of you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For married women's maiden names, there's the highly specific word née... AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you give your word on that, Sir Knight? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Armed Forces fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [2] Manning is clearly subject thereto. Collect (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does that override the requirements of section 3, article 3? According to our article "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions" ? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose was to avoid the abuses of the British treason laws which made it a capitol offense to insult the King or eat one of his swans, which drew barbaric penalties, and which were obviously not restricted to war against the country itself. Someone more familiar than I with my American perspective will know what article to point to regarding treason in Britain/England before 1789. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article would probably be High treason in the United Kingdom. Most of the definition of treason in 1789 appears to be from the Treason Act 1351, which made the following things treason:

Killing or planning to kill the King, his wife, or his heir.
Having sex with the King's wife, his heir's wife, or his unmarried daughter.
Rebelling against the King or aiding his enemies.
Counterfeiting the King's seal.
Counterfeiting coinage.
Killing certain of the King's officers.

Various other things have been "high treason" at various times, including "referring to the Sovereign offensively in public writing". --Carnildo (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People are seldom literally charged with "treason" anymore. Looking at the Timothy McVeigh case, an argument could have been made that he committed an act of treason. However, he committed enough capital crimes to fry him anyway. In the 60s, when Jane Fonda foolishly took a trip to North Vietnam and made a spectacle of herself, there were those who felt a case of treason could have been brought against her. That was never done, for probably any number of reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fonda was certainly not "making war against the United States", so you would have had to prove that she was "adhering to their Enemies". Given that there was no formal state of war, that might have been constitutionally problematic; I'm curious what any experts here might have to say about that.

Whatever the legalities, we and the Viet Cong actually were shooting at each other, whereas we weren't shooting at Russians when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg did whatever exactly they did. I assume that's why the government stuck to the charge of espionage, which was easier to prove, and did not charge them with treason. --Trovatore (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. We weren't and still aren't technically at war with Russia. The specific definition of treason in the Constitution almost makes it obsolete, which is probably a good thing. Jane Fonda could be said to have been giving "aid and comfort to the enemy". Jane's behavior was so outrageous that her own father, who was a political liberal himself, felt compelled to ask her if she was a Communist, i.e. if she was now an enemy of America. She said No. And while it's true there was no official declaration of war, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was effectively that. In any case, no formal action was taken against Jane. There's an article called List of people convicted of treason. I don't know if the US portion is exhaustive, but it does seem like charges of treason pretty much stopped around 1960. Obviously, a specific charge such as espionage is more to the point, and provable. "Treason" is slippery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think to stop this practice, the law must define what constitutes treason and specify "this law applies whenever anyone is accused of these activities, regardless of the name given to the charges". "War" is another case where the US Constitution says one thing (that the Senate must declare war), but we just ignore that and have "police actions", etc., instead. "Genocide" is another famous case, where the UN requires that action be taken to stop it, so we just refused to call the Rwandan Genocide by that name. It is a disturbing problem, I agree, even though this practice may also have positive results, like allowing same-sex marriages just by calling them "civil unions", since those aren't forbidden by the law. StuRat (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, political word games. It's the entire Congress that has the power to declare war.[3] The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was not quite a declaration of war, but it did authorize Congress to fund it. Regarding the Korean War, I'm reminded of this comment by satirist Richard Armour, "It started as a police action, but we ran out of police and had to send soldiers." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sedition is also related to treason. StuRat (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Grand Maester Pycelle, treason is treason, but also a "noxious weed" that must be torn up, lest new traitors sprout up at every roadside. So it may fall under the Plant Protection Act. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banking hours worldwide

My bank (in Poland) is not processing any orders (e.g. a bank transfer) on weekends (Saturday, Sunday). Is this common worldwide? How about countries which have a different working week (e.g. Arabic countries)? bamse (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same here in Australia, and, I suspect, other countries. There's been talk of introducing a real-time interbank transfer system for "standard" transfers (essentially Real-time gross settlement as a standard feature), but I suspect that may be years away. No idea how things work in the Islamic banking system, which is pretty much a world of its' own. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To trade stocks, you don't have to call a broker to learn the price (In 1/8ths), buy in lots of 100 ($50K chunks for Apple), and pay him $200 to make two phone calls. Now you pay $7 online, can buy 1 share, and pay $41.43 instead of $41&3/8. Even in 2008, you could buy euros online — 1 or 100K — at $1.XXXXX and pay 2.0 pips to the broker. (a pip is $0.00010/€). Banks are dinosaurs. The future is not here until everyone's bank settles transfers instantly, and computers are fast enough that they boot in 1 second and everyone's interest is compounded Planck-secondly (actually figured out with advancer math, and only when looked at deposited into or withdrawn from). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv is also open on Sunday...so I imagine you can send money from Tel Aviv to CairoLihaas (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a matter of convenience and profit to the banks than anything else. It used to be typical for a check to take at least a week to clear in the US, and even checks between accounts in the same bank took three days. Local banks that held your employer's payroll account would cash your paycheck the same day if you went to the same physical branch--this was a way to entice customers. The Congress changed the banking rules in the late 80's and required most checks between banks to clear on the third day and many others btween accounts in the same bank to clear the same or the following day. The banks could have done this voluntarily for decades, but guess who was reaping the interest on the funds for the week it took the check to "clear" to your account? See this PDF on US history. I am not sure on the rules on weekend and holiday deposits, but most banks in the US offer weekend banking and even ATM's that will allow you to scan a check into deposit 24 hours. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently received a cheque from the USA, in US dollars. I deposited it in my local bank here in Australia, and they converted it immediately into Aussie dollars, but said it takes 28 days for the funds to clear. Is this the standard clearance time for such international transactions, in these days of instantaneous and universal electronic communication? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it for a large amount of money? Large transfers into the US can be held up by federal laws on money laundering and terrorism; not sure if it applies to outgoing transfers (or if Australia has their own laws on these matters). OldTimeNESter (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About $400. I'm sure we do have such laws, but the payer was a fairly major hospital. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of different problems with transacting checks across national borders, in addition to what was previously mentioned about money laundering and terrorism (which are absolutely true). One is that the infrastructure simply isn't there for many banks (even in these days of instantaneous and universal electronic communication). There really isn't an international standard for clearing checks between countries. Large banks have it much easier if they actually operate in the foreign country you're looking at, but mid-sized banks will typically replace that with relationships with banks in a couple of "popular" foreign countries, and a relationship with a larger bank in their own country to assist them with the countries they don't directly cover. For example, the regional bank I work for in the United States has direct relationships with banks in Canada, England, and Germany as well as a relationship with a large multinational bank in the United States. If an Australian check is presented to me, it would have to be processed by my bank's internal infrastructure, then forwarded to the larger American bank, then through to an Australian bank for introduction to the Australian check processing system - and then the credit for that would go all the way back through the chain in reverse.

The other problem is risk of loss to the bank. All things being equal, banks would prefer to hold checks as long as possible so they don't get caught for a loss if the check is returned. In the United States, Congress has done something about that with the Expedited Funds Availability Act, limiting how banks can hold checks. The catch there is that foreign checks aren't considered checks under U.S. law, so those rules don't apply, and since the processing times for foreign checks can be pretty ridiculously long the bank will set a pretty long hold to make sure that the check actually clears. 28 days is not at all uncommon - I've seen holds of 6-8 weeks for larger checks going to less-common countries. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is most enlightening. Thank you, ElHef. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stock market valuation

Does anyone know where to get up-to-date data on how much stock markets trade to their intrinsic value?Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean how the market value of a stock compares to its actual value? I don't think there is any agreed upon measure of the actual value (or if it even makes sense to talk about an "actual" value as separate from market value), but there are different metrics that people use. The article Fundamental_Analysis should help (you might want to see Economic_bubble as well). OldTimeNESter (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant the stock market indices as a whole. Most are over 6 times over.Lihaas (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over what? How would you define "intrinsic value"? Their market capital is the best estimation of their value in an efficient market. Shadowjams (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the high end of historic range of replacement value, aka book value. Russell 2000 is at 1.5x or something. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Do you hgave figures for this that are updated?Lihaas (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Provisional Government's Decision to Remain in WWI Being Influenced by the United States's Decision to Enter WWI?

Does anyone here know if the Russian Provisional Government's decision to remain in World War I was influenced at all by the United States's decision to enter World War I? Does anyone here know of any documents and/or sources which discuss this? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Peace Prize winner Elihu Root led an American delegation that forced the Russian government to continue its war efforts. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this info. It might be useful to me. Futurist110 (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, the Russian "surrender" ironically proved to be the Germans' undoing, as the Germans continued to occupy large portions of Russia (even beyond that agreed to in the treaty). Obvious problem for the Germans being, these troops were not in the west when they were desperately needed - and in any case, many were subverted by Bolshevik propaganda, leaving them useless to the Kaiser. Sorry I can't provide a source. A somewhat similar situation arose in World War II when Hitler, personally stung by the overthrow of Yugoslavia's pro-nazi government, ordered the invasion of Russia postponed in order to "crush" Yugoslavia. He obviously didn't realize or care the the infamous Russian winter was fast closing in, making the six-week delay awfully costly... 124.181.239.69 (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't cards bigger?

Gambling for recreation went through a period of extreme cheating. (In the Wild West, someone was caught with a "pull-card-up-sleeve machine" that gave them back when he squeezed his thigh muscles, they didn't beat him, everyone demanded he tell where to get one and teach them how to use it). Why'd it become usual to not use the top card and have the dealer's neighbor cut the deck but leave them just small enough to use the mechanic's grip, put them up sleeves, and hold them completely covered with a hand? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just guessing, but if they were any bigger, they'd be hard to hold in one hand, much less shuffle and deal. Being easy to handle makes them easy to cheat with. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They could hold them in one hand like you'd hold a dish, shuffle and deal them on the table. At least in the 1800s US when the card game of the West (poker) was called "the Cheating Game". Though these things often stick. They also wouldn't have to be as big if they were squarer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The size and shape of cards has changed considerable over the years. I believe our article Playing card has good information that might be helpful to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]