Humanities desk
< June 7	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 9 >

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.

June 8

Herman Knaust

I'm looking for references that deal with Herman Knaust — mushroom farmer and founder of Iron Mountain Incorporated — in detail. Just trying to see if there is enough detail available to warrant an article. Hack (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Six results from the google newspaper archive [1] and most of them from wire services (so not just local paper stories) - that's one start. And at least that many google books hits [2], over quite a number of years. Skimming, I'm not seeing anything that focuses on the man rather than on the enterprise (but you might take a closer look, and there might be enough snippets to add up to something). 184.147.134.128 (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find a book

Hi, I'm trying to remember the name of a book I read an extract of a few months ago. I can't remember the name or author, but I remember the following:

the writing style was notably unusual
there was a reference to the radio saying it was 'going to be a scorcher' or similar wording
the radio crackled
there was a red postbox
it was a fairly popular book at some time

I appreciate this is not much to go on, but any help is much appreciated. 86.147.145.172 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry? Mikenorton (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but thanks for looking. 86.147.145.172 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bet on Red Riding Nineteen Seventy Seven by David Peace. Brandmeister^talk 16:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, that was brilliant! Best, 86.184.170.29 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1993 South African constitution

If the 1993 South African interim constitution was assented to by the State President in 1994, why is its short title "Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993"?Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was promulgated in 1993 and assented to in 1994. Similarly the 1996 constitution was assented to in 1997. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horekhof and Hakanb I

Horekhof returned only 5 google hits and nothing in Books, same as Hakanb I, still both are mentioned as Egyptian "kings" in The Cairo Post, for example. What are alternative transliterations of these names? The associated Labib Habachi article doesn't mention these guys either. Brandmeister^talk 16:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that it means Harkhuf and Heqaib. Both of them were buried at Aswan, but neither of them were kings. Given the other flaws in the article, an error of that magnitude seems possible. The article mangles its English (it says "fiancé" instead of "faience", for instance), and it says Habachi discovered the temple of "Hakanb" "in the beginning of the 20th century" instead of 1946. Habachi wasn't even an adult until the 1920s. A. Parrot (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

find article main authors

How do I find authors so I can contact them? Specifically for Richard St. Clair Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.1.202 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles don't have authors as such; they have contributors. If you click the "View History" tab at the top of the page, you can see who the main contributors were. You may have to click back in time through several screens of history to see the full history of contributions. In the case of Richard St. Clair, the history shows that there was in fact one dominant contributor who comes close to being the author. This contributor, whose username is User:Shin02143, does not have a home page and has not been active since July of last year, so he or she may not be aware of an attempt to contact him or her through Wikipedia, though you could try his or her talk page. Users are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia anonymously, so we do not know the real identity of this person. Marco polo (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):If you click on the "View History" link at the top-right of any article, it will list all the edits to that article. However, there isn't an (easy) way of finding who's edited it the most. It appears that User:Shin02143 and the anonymous user:18.54.0.213 have been most active on it. LongHairedFop (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with clicking the Revision history statistics link at the top of that page? It brings up all kinds of data, including most frequent contributors (as here, scroll about halfway down). Matt Deres (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can a reward for turning in a fugitive criminal be claimed by the fugitive criminal himself?

Recently, there were two convicts who escaped maximum security prison in New York. Subsequently, a reward was offered for information leading to their capture. This prompted a curious question on my part. (Not in this specific case, but in any case.) Can the criminal himself turn himself in and claim the reward? I wonder how that would work. Does anyone know? Or have there been similar cases? Just curious. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This person tried something similar [3] [4] although it doesn't say what happened. Of course in this case the reward was offered by a foreign government and it's unlikely the local courts will be particularly helpful in a civil case. Anyway on the more general question, in the US, in various states it's possible Son of Sam laws will apply depending on how broadly they are written. It's also possible Civil forfeiture in the United States could be used (as the money is arguably coming directly from the crime rather than indirectly) again depending on how the laws are written and intepreted. Of course the nature of the later laws means they can just be used and the person will have to sue to get their money back. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not. Given the amount of money often offered for rewards, I would guess that they have individual contracts or other legal forms for the person(s) claiming the reward to execute between them and the agency, which is likely written to specifically exclude the person(s) of interest. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 04:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there would be a contract to sign? To me, that doesn't make sense. The "condition" is to "hand over" the criminal. Once I "hand over" the criminal, I am entitled to the money. After I "hand over" the criminal, the agency cannot then create a lot of stipulations in a contract (i.e., after the fact, after they have gotten what they wanted). No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who says you're entitled? There's always going to be "a process" to follow. And common sense would say that paying fugitives for turning themselves in would only encourage more escape attempts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your post at all. Yes, I would say that I am "entitled". That, too, is common sense. If the FBI says "we are offering a $100,000 reward if you help us locate this criminal" ... then, yes, common sense (and the law) dictates that I should get the $100,000 if I perform the required act (i.e., locate the criminal). Why would I not be entitled? And if I am not entitled, what's the point of the FBI offering this reward or any reward (i.e., if the person performing the required act fulfills that act and still is not entitled to the reward)? Yes, common sense would dictate that the police and FBI do not want the criminals themselves to get the reward money. Which is the whole point of my question. So, my question is basically asking: how do they "get around" that problem? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a problem if you make it one. Just because an entity offers a reward doesn't mean it's unconditional and immediate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I stick a poster outside my house saying "Cleaner wanted. Will pay £10 / hour" you can't just turn up, break in, half-arsedly clean my house and then demand £10 / hour. The answer to your question is that a wanted poster is an advertisement, not the offering of a contract. Obviously I'm going to want to interview before I hire my cleaner and obviously the FBI's advertisement does not extend to the criminal. --87.224.68.42 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: and @87.224.68.42: You are both saying things that are obvious and, yet, not answering my question. Also, how is it "obvious" that the FBI's advertisement does not extend to the criminal? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would lead you to think it would? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of my question, again. I won't be repeating my question, again, though. Thanks, though. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are being deliberately obtuse. It is common sense that you aren't going to reward the criminal for turning himself in. You sound like the sort of person who thinks they are clever for going up to someone holding a tray of free sample biscuits with a sign saying "Please Help Yourself", and grabbing the lot, then feigning confusion when people say you can't do that. --87.224.68.42 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly, we can't all be quite as smart as you. Thanks for your, ummm, input. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason an escaped prisoner should expect to get the reward by turning himself in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure why you keep repeating the same (very obvious) point, yet you keep failing to answer the question at hand (i.e., the whole point of this thread). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By now you could have called the authorities in New York and gotten an authoritative answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a helpful answer in the context of an Internet Discussion Board? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you really want to find out an authoritative answer, your best bet is to contact the source of the reward offer, rather than relying on internet opinions. If I really wanted to know, that's what I would do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(A) What makes you think that the New York authorities would have any answer (much less, an "authoritative answer") on each of the other 49 states, and on the federal government policies? (B) If that is your line of thinking, why have internet question boards at all? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This assumes that there are criminals able to escape, but not currently interested, because of a lack of a cash reward for doing so. As for reasons to pay them to turn themselves in, there's public safety and the low cost of the reward relative to the cost of a manhunt. If the criminals are in prison for life or on death row, there's not much concern that they will personally benefit, either. Presumably their relatives will. StuRat (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corocotta apparently did. Paul B (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a small amount of research I've been able to do, I've been unable to locate detailed information on the specific terms and conditions of the FBI's reward offers. However one constant that I've noticed is that most, if not all, of the rewards are phrased as "up to $X". For example, see the 10 Most Wanted FAQ, specifically the "Are there rewards offered ..." question. Aside from the FBI, there is a small bit of information about another US reward program in the (poorly written) Narcotics Rewards Program; "the statement of a maximum does not imply the existence of a minimum". More information on the lack of reward payments in some situations can be found in this Guardian article. --LarryMac | Talk 15:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info (and the research). Remember, also, that rewards may be (and often are) offered by many different agencies (not just the FBI). For example, state and local law enforcement agencies. I am sure they all have somewhat different details and specifications, but they probably all follow a more-or-less similar protocol. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since in the OP's example there were two criminals,they may be able to supply information as to each other's whereabouts.Person A would then claim the reward for tracking down person B and vice versa-in which case they would not be concerned with 'turning themselves in' Lemon martini (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I had not thought of that scenario. So, if the two convicts knew that their capture was inevitable, they could "report" the other. And then both could walk away with the rewards (for helping to locate and capture the other). If they were clever, I think they could "get away" with that. But, I am sure that law enforcement would find some loophole to avoid exactly this scenario. Possibly, the claim of the reward can be seen as a "product" of the original crime (the escape) and, as such, renders them ineligible for the reward. In other words, I assume that there are laws that make the (illegal) fruits of an illegal act subject to seizure or forfeiture (as someone mentioned above). So, the original illegal act would be the escape. And, any fruits or benefits that flowed from that (i.e., each convict reporting the other, so as to claim the reward) would also be illegal, null, and void. Similar to drug dealers. I believe that the fruits of their illegal enterprise (the money, etc.) are subject to seizure by the government. If a person robs a bank, I assume that they are not allowed to keep the money stolen. Etc. Things like that. That concept must come into play in this scenario, as well. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that the specifics about the offering of rewards might vary from state to state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had mentioned that above. I had stated: "Remember, also, that rewards may be (and often are) offered by many different agencies (not just the FBI). For example, state and local law enforcement agencies. I am sure they all have somewhat different details and specifications, but they probably all follow a more-or-less similar protocol." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of Riggs v. Palmer, that the court will not allow a wrongdoer to profit from his or her own wrongdoing, would probably be invoked here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is merely a New York case. That would be applicable only in New York state, and nowhere else (unless other states – or the federal government – had a similar statute or case decision). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the problem. Your question implies an expectation of a single answer. There could be 50 answers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did my question imply an expectation of "one single answer"? In fact, I myself am the one who stated above (not once, but twice) that having 50 states probably invokes 50 different (albeit similar) policies. No? Also, the number would not be 50, it would be in the thousands. Since local law authorities can offer rewards. Not just each state. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if they were somehow able to get the reward anyway, it should be turned over to the defense fund of whoever helped them escape. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if the criminal is smart, he would realize that no governmental authority is going to hand over a reward to him, the fugitive criminal himself. So, the criminal would (and should) get, say, an innocent family member to go in cahoots with him. And then the (innocent) family member could claim the reward and the guilty criminal family member can split it 50/50 with him. Assuming that the innocent family member will go along with the scheme. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And assuming the investigators don't figure out that the relative was in on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the family member is not doing anything illegal at all. If he knows of the criminal's whereabouts (by whatever means he gains that information), he can report it to authorities. What he does with the reward money later on is his business only, and no one else's. Legally, he can "gift" money to his family member (the fugitive criminal). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]