Humanities desk
< August 1	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 3 >

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.

August 2

Africa; Western or Eastern world??

The Americas and Europe for the Western world. Asia forms the Eastern world. Which world is Africa?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Rest of the World" or "ROW". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Africa is considered the Third World, which in 20th century historiography distinct from The Western World (Capitalist or Socialist Democracies on the Anglo-American axis) and The Eastern World (Communist countries on the Soviet or Chinese axis). --Jayron 32 17:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really is not that simple, and never has been. The term "West" has been used to describe a certain economic and political system, common in Europe and North America - but also in Australia, New Zealand and Japan. The "East" used to be a term for the Communist world, though that has lost meaning. When that was the main division, Africa tended to be considered a part of the Third World - meaning tho less developed countries. There is also now a tendency to think in terms of the "South" - meaning Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. Wymspen (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier than that, the West was "Christendom", i.e. Europe and, after the age of discovery, the Americas which came under European control, while the East was "everyone who believed in weird religions", i.e. Turkey, the Middle East, South and East Asia, etc. In those days Japan would have been firmly East. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A recent phrase is "the global South" - our article on it is titled North–South divide. You may also be interested in the East–West dichotomy - tellingly, Africa is absent. One division is between the Old World, "the part of the world known to Europeans before contact with the Americas", and the New World. The nations of Africa that abut the Mediterranean have been trading with Europe for thousands of years; the Sahara was the great division. All this to say, it isn't simple, and the answer you get depends on the nuances of the question. "Which world is Africa?" Politically, financially, historically? What is the context and purpose of your question? Africa is increasingly connected to Asia - for example, see Africa–China relations. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before the end of USSR, the Western world was the capitalist world, the Eastern world was the communist world, and Africa was in the Third-World. Now that there is no Eastern world anymore, and that the Western world is quickly turning into a new Third-World, Africa is in the South. Akseli9 (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, prior to the modern divisions, the world was divided into "The Occident" and "The Orient". The Occident being basically "Europe" and "The Orient" being anything else; including places like North Africa, which is south of Europe and not east of Europe, but was culturally considered to be part of The East. Also see Orientalism which was a European trend fetishizing anything from "The Orient", but which to Europeans including such disparate places as India, China, Turkey, or even Morocco. --Jayron 32 17:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 colonies losing the war

What would have happened if the thirteen colonies had lost the American Revolutionary war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Top of the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The American cricket team would dominate the Earth. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However it is appropriate for us to provide links to works of counterfactual or alternate history. On this particular subject, we have For Want of a Nail (novel). -- ToE 02:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related are Harry Turtledove's The Disunited States of America (the colonies win the war but are unable to agree on a constitution) and The Two Georges (the war never happens). -- ToE 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turtledove's The United States of Atlantis (alternate geography) may also interest you. -- ToE 03:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about alternate histories where the thirteen colonies lose along with France,and where the french revolution still consequently takes place?Uncle dan is home (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can say with certainty that things would have been different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the Spanish Armada had succeeded, Shakespeare's original plays might have been written in Spanish. Had the Moors defeated Isabella and Ferdinand, Columbus might never have been funded to sail west across the Atlantic... and Shakespeare's original plays might have been written in Arabic. If Muhammad had decided to run off and live on an island somewhere, Islam might not have been founded... and Shakespeare's original plays might have been written in Latin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs If the Spanish Armada had succeeded, Shakespeare would have saved England, that is well known: Ruled Britannia.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the French king Louis XVI who finally was ~~overthroned~~ early deposited, there is no other well documented example of a king, active supporter of a foreign revolution. One possible scenario is that a French aristocracy party would have taken control, arguing of the costs and failure of the american adventure. The remaining position of the French in the Caribbean makes this idea imo rather improbable ( split leadership would probably have had a catastrophic impact on the colonies, and the alternative possibility of a dictatorship does not seem to correspond better to an initial situation ) --Askedonty (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Your "overthroned" was pretty good too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As we are in the alternate, at any rate. --Askedonty (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had the colonies lost the Revolution War, all the same forces tending to lead to separation would still exist. There would still be colonists disgruntled over taxation without representation, for example. The British could have been generous and granted the colonist full representation in the British Parliament, or alternatively granted them home rule. However, my take on it is that if they weren't willing to do so to prevent a war, then they would be even less likely to do so after, as that would be seen as a reward for the revolt.

So, that leaves the opposite approach, a military crackdown, executing leaders for treason, and full military occupation. The colonists might have resorted to asymmetrical warfare and the British to massacres of civilians after such attacks. Ultimately this situation may have led to colonists fleeing for other places, such as safer British colonies (Canada, for example) or into Louisiana (New France), alternately controlled by the French and Spanish. While the French sold that land to the US, they probably wouldn't have sold it to their traditional enemy, the British.

So, if the British wanted it, that may have led to another war, this time with many ex-colonists now fighting for the French. This would be similar to how many Americans Texicans fought with the Tejanos against domination by Spain. Ultimately projection of British power well into the interior of North America would have gotten very expensive, with lengthy supply lines subject to attack. So, this war would be even more difficult for the British to win, and the expense more difficult to justify back home. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing we're not allowed to indulge in speculation here. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would never engage in speculation, as I wouldn't even begin to know how to use a speculum. :-) But seriously, I'm not saying what would have happened, just listing possibilities. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

If the colonies had lost, slavery might have been abolished in the south a lot sooner than it was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not unreasonable. See Dunmore's Proclamation & Black Loyalist. "Shakespeare's original plays might have been written in Arabic." You know, I think there's some old sci-fi alternate history novel with this. Pre-Turtledove I think.John Z (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery would have ended sooner and the American Civil War would have been avoided. The Red Indians would have been treated a damn sight better, too (akin to how they were treated in Canada, with equal legal rights). By any objective standard, the success of the American Revolution was a tragedy. 178.42.99.174 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly a tragedy for the British, who have only themselves to blame for it. Although nowadays they're trying to buy us back, piece by piece. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse could have happened, and slavery could have remained legal in the British Empire longer, if prominent people in England still had financial interests in North America, and the profitability of those interests was dependent on slavery. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They did! The Caribbean is part of North America. See Abolitionism in the United Kingdom. Tevildo (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but a lot more would have had their financial interest negatively affected by abolition had the US South remained theirs to invest in. StuRat (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Territory transfer after Soviet break up

What was the official legal status of places like Paldiski after the Soviet breakup? Estonia declared Independence in 1991, but Paldiski continued to have a large Russian military presence until 1994. Furthermore, it was sealed off to Estonians for that duration. What was the official status of Paldiski between 1991 and 1994? Did it count as Russian soil or just Estonian soil rented out to Russia? Crudiv1 (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did Russia had to pay for these few years of occupation of the base, and if so, how much? Crudiv1 (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? Or this? Sounds like it was internationally viewed as a continued military occupation. Occupation is a well recognised concept in international law which is different from either actual sovereignty or leased territory/concession. In this case the occupation was ended by agreement. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a pretty good article at Military occupation that covers the rules for occupation under international law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the most accurate word to describe the legal status of such bases would be "disputed" Wymspen (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not after the recognition of the independence of the Baltic states I don't think - I don't think post-Soviet Russia was ever claiming sovereignty over the bases. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The President may pardon "...except in cases of impeachment".

A simple question of US constitutional law, but excuse my cluelessness in not knowing the answer.

The US constitution says the President may pardon "..except in case of impeachment".

Does this simply mean that the President cannot pardon someone from impeachment proceedings themselves - either ones in progress, or pardons intended to overturn an impeachment already performed?

Or does it mean far more than that - that once a person has been impeached, he is ineligible for any presidential pardon - even one unrelated to stopping or overturning the impeachment proceedings?

The classic case I have in mind is Richard Nixon. Imagine he had refused to resign, and been successfully impeached. Would this have thus rendered him ineligible for successor Gerald Ford's pardon of him for crimes he may have committed before or during his time in office?

And if yes, might this be an incentive for him or any person in such a situation to pre-emptively resign, so as to remain eligible for a pardon? Eliyohub (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on impeachment includes the clear statement that "The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting criminal case." Wymspen (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that presidential pardon powers are restricted to federal offenses. If President Nixon's crime was below the federal level (say, involvement in a third-rate burglary in Washington, DC, the president's powers would not have extended that far. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to keep in mind that impeachment is not a criminal trial. The only possible punishment is removal from office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant for a state perhaps. But isn't it generally accepted that all crimes in DC are federal crimes because the federal government has ultimate control over DC? Or at least that the presidential pardon authority extends to all crimes in DC (except I guess that discussed above). At least that's what these sources seem to say [1] [2] [3] although they note the mayor can also pardon some crimes. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you were driving in DC and got a speeding ticket, for example, would that moving violation be a federal crime? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it was committed on federal property and you were cited by the United States Park Police (for speeding on the George Washington Memorial Parkway or Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, we'll say), it would be a federal violation (see traffic infraction) but not a federal crime. We actually have a stub on the unit that handles these tickets: the Central Violations Bureau, which is part of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. See also their FAQs: "The Central Violations Bureau is a national center responsible for processing violation notices (tickets) issued and payments received for petty offenses charged on a federal violation notice. This includes violations that occur on federal property such as federal buildings, national parks, military installations, post offices, Veteran Affairs medical centers, national wildlife refuges, and national forests."

As for places in DC not on federal property, a moving violation would likely be a noncriminal infraction under the Code of the District of Columbia. See also District of Columbia home rule#Justice system... Neutrality^talk 23:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congress after Cabinet

I would like a list of all U.S. Cabinet Secretaries or Cabinet-level officials who were elected to the Senate or House after serving in the cabinet (like Mike Johanns or Lamar Alexander. Thank you very much. 2A02:582:833:AE00:ECB0:4C9B:C1D8:5897 (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that anyone has already made such a list; but if you wanted to do so yourself, you could use a tool like Wikipedia:CatScan, which finds articles that exist at the intersection of two categories, such as Category:Members of the Cabinet of the United States and Category:Members of the United States Congress. If you can figure out CatScan, you can configure it to include all members of all subcategories as well, which should give you a good start to your list. The caveat being that it depends on Wikipedia's comprehensiveness; I'm pretty sure there are at least stub level articles for all such people, but there may be a few holes. --Jayron 32 17:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most diplomatic missions

I happened to hear a fragment of a radio news item that said Pretoria (South Africa) is the national capital with the second most foreign embassies in the whole world - is this true, and which capital has the most and which is third, fourth, fifth... (et seq) in that ranking? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I can find is an internet quiz (not particularly reliable), but it confirms my instinctive reaction that Pretoria is nowhere near the top. The quiz claims Brussels hosts 182 diplomatic missions, followed by Washington, D.C. at 174, with Pretoria ranked 13th at 120. I can't vouch for the exact numbers, but as an order of magnitude, it makes sense. Just about everyone has an embassy in Brussels or DC, given the political and economic importance of the EU and the USA, while a lot of South American and Asian countries have little or no reason to have an Embassy in South Africa. Pretoria hosts the most embassies in sub-Saharan Africa by a wide margin, though, as along with Cairo, it's the logical place to set up an embassy in Africa for countries with a small diplomatic network. --Xuxl (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is pretty much in line with my expectations. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rome hosts legations to Italy, the Vatican, the SMOM, the FAO and San Marino. That makes lots of diplomats around. --Error (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paris also has a huge number of missions, since it hosts huge numbers of accredited missions to other European countries (many small countries can't afford an embassy in every European country, so they do all their work out of one embassy - usually Paris or Brussels, sometimes London, Berlin or Geneva). However, it has only 157 embassies (plus 6 more pseudo-embassies for unrecognized countries like Taiwan and Palestine). Unfortunately we don't seem to have a list, but if you look up articles like List of diplomatic missions in Belgium, List of diplomatic missions in the United States, List of diplomatic missions in South Africa etc, you can see how many each city in that country hosts. Smurrayinchester 08:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs President = Marquise?

The article Mr. President (title) claims that the presidential spouse was addressed as "Marquise". It cites a book but the text is not available online. Is that really true? Or is it vandalism that has gone unnoticed? It seems surprising that an aristocratic title would be repurposed for the wife of a president. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in this edit on 24 February 2009. Verifying the source might require a trip to a library. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a misunderstanding. "First Ladies: From Martha Washington to Michelle Obama" By Betty Caroli says that when George Washington became president there was discussion about what title should be used - and that "suggestions for the president's wife ranged all the way from Marquise and Lady to simple Mrs." I can find no evidence that any president's wife ever used the title of Marquise - just that it was suggested, and presumably rejected. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fKcXxv2pqfYC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=marquise+as+title+of+president%27s+wife&source=bl&ots=AbId9eygDo&sig=THhDSwz5M2Tf9k-hq3HwTPdl9Ac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikjPKi66LOAhXrB8AKHTBSDD4Q6AEINjAE#v=onepage&q=marquise%20as%20title%20of%20president's%20wife&f=false Wymspen (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peace deal in 1941

Nazi troll

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Does anyone know about the peace deal that Hitler attempted to make in 1941 with Winston Churchill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleman1240 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Daily Mail article about this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2433733/How-Nazis-offered-peace-treaty-World-War-II-meant-selling-Russians.html Wymspen (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I bet he was tempted! _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You're probably referencing the peace mission of Rudolf Hess. The usual account is that Hess acted without Hitler's authorization or blessing, but Der Spiegel published an account a few years ago suggesting otherwise. The Smithsonian recently published another article on the subject. — Lomn 14:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latinized Russian banned in Russian-language forums?

It has been mentioned on another website that because there are so many different standards for Latinizing Russian (for example, х could be Romanized as x, h, kh, ch, etc.), many Russian-language forums would ban members if they made posts in Latinized Russian. Is there any truth to this? 75.127.138.202 (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is good example of why Wikipedia discourages weasel words in articles. What is "many"? How many does "many" have to be before it becomes significant? No doubt that some forum somewhere has enforced such a policy at some point in time for some users. The infinite monkey theorem suggests that such a thing is so. However, while searches for "Russian forums ban Latin alphabet" return results for related things -- the suppression of various alphabets for direct or indirect political reasons, for example -- I find no strong evidence of the particular claim that romanization is prohibited as a matter of course on Russian-language forums. — Lomn 14:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. If someone on this forum started posting English texts rendered in Cyrillic or Chinese letters, you would presumably be concerned. It's the logic behind the ban of Latinized Russian (транслит) on many/most Russophone forums. Ghirla^-трёп- 07:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inscription holes

Have noticed that on this inscription, for example, there are holes in every letter. Why is that? Is it because the letters had nailed plaques on them which later detached? Brandmeister^talk 17:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this general source on Latin Epigraphy: [4] you're exactly correct; they were dowel-holes used to affix metal letters. Presumably, metal being expensive, the letters were at some point removed and melted down for another application. This page here on the Arch of Titus directly states that the holes were used to affix bronze letters. --Jayron 32 17:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I haven't seen a single inscription of this type with surviving metallic letters. Presumably all have been stolen at some point. Brandmeister^talk 17:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2000 years is a long time for something like that to avoid theft. Especially something so useful and expensive as refined metal. That last page does note that later restorations have put new letters in, but such letters are not original. I'm reminded of the limestone casing of the pyramids of Giza. All three pyramids were once smooth-sided and encased in brilliant white limestone casing. Centuries later, the limestone was taken off and repurposed for other building projects. --Jayron 32 17:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone think of any non-classical-era examples of lettering like that, even? Normally today if people wanted to display carved lettering in a different color from the background material, they'll just paint the carved surface, like this or like this. If the carved spaces were filled with a solid material, you'd have to be able to get right up to the sign to tell that the letters weren't just painted on a flat surface. I've done some searches and I've only found one example that looks as if it might possibly be carved lettering filled with a solid material: this one. And I can't really tell whether those letters are just painted on. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pantheon in Rome is one example where the inlaid metal inscriptions are still there: see this photo for example. I don't know whether it's a restoration from more recent times, however.

The norm for metal letters on neo-classical public buildings seems to be for the letters to be raised, not inlaid - e.g. this photo of the inscription on Admiralty Arch.

Here's an interesting discussion about the gilded letters on the portico of the National Gallery in London. The Reichstag inscription which it mentions is one example of inlaid metal letters on a non-classical building - apparently the Kaiser agreed to the dangerously democratic slogan on the condition that the letters are made out of captured French guns. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also the Royal Exchange and Admiralty Arch in London (oops, sorry I missed PalaceGuard's post above). Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read somewhere that archeologists can reconstruct inscriptions based on the distribution of holes, since their positions were quite standardized for each letter. --Error (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of a US President

Clearly, a US President can be impeached for any "bad" conduct or activity while they are in office (i.e., while they are serving as President). Can they be impeached for bad conduct or activity that occurred prior to taking office? For example, the bad conduct was undiscovered; they got elected; and then -- after taking office -- the bad conduct gets discovered. Does the impeachment process cover this sort of scenario? In other words, can you impeach a President for the bad conduct engaged in before they even were a President (when they were just an ordinary citizen)? Or is this scenario handled by some other manner, outside of the impeachment process? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent article is Impeachment in the United States. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... the opening sentence of which reads:

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed while in office (my bolding). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, as others have said, impeachment covers crimes in office, any crimes committed prior to taking office, so long as the statute of limitations hasn't passed, would likely be prosecuted in the usual manner. I can't imagine, however, that a president facing a criminal conviction while in office would be long for the position. In fact, there are some interpretations of the text of the Constitution (namely based on what "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" means) that suggest a president could be removed for failing to show the honor and integrity necessary to lead the country. Under that interpretation, a president convicted of crimes committed before taking office could potentially be impeached for being a convicted criminal and therefore unfit for the position. clpo13_(talk) 21:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I think the above responses are missing my point. Mainly because I didn't make my point very clear. Let's say that the "bad conduct" is discovered. However, there are no convictions and perhaps not even any prosecutions. But the "bad conduct" is clearly from before the time that the individual became President. So, in such a case, is the impeachment process totally out of the question and inapplicable? And, in essence, the country is "stuck" with the bad actor? And Congress cannot do anything about it? Or are there other mechanisms in place? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, in the U.S., Congress can impeach for any reason, including wearing mismatched socks. Sure, they're not supposed to impeach except for "Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors", but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. United States that the judicial branch has no power to review impeachments. (Note the case has nothing to do with President Richard Nixon; it involves a completely different person who just happened to share a last name.) If Congress does not follow the Constitution in impeaching officeholders, there is no remedy other than the opinion of the electorate, who can vote out Congressmembers. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you saying: "If Congress does not follow the Constitution in impeaching officeholders ..."? The Constitution says that the offense must be while in office, as pointed out above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what he's saying, and what everybody else above is saying to you, is that the scope of the "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" phrasing has never been defined and is open to a wide variety of interpretations. Theoretically, the House can impeach for any made-up reason the Representatives can conceive and, as long as a simple majority goes along with it, they can then refer the matter to the Senate for trial. 71.110.8.102 is saying that there is no process for appeal or judicial review of impeachments, so, if they can get a big enough conspiracy going, the House can (theoretically) impeach for anything, and only be accountable to their constituents. However, in the Senate trial, the impeached president would have a right to private counsel to raise objections, present evidence, etc. and the trial itself would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (in modern times, they usually take great pride in their independence and detachment from party politics). So in order to remove a president from office for anything other than a glaring constitutional misstep or outright crime would require a conspiracy including at least half the House, 2/3 of the Senate and the Chief Justice -- a scenario so unlikely that an impeachment conviction has never happened in the history of the US for any real crime, much less a made up one.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in conspiracy theories and/or illegitimate or disingenuous situations (e.g., Congress just "trumping up" political charges). I am interested if a real bona fide situation occurred. I'd offer examples, but then everyone would focus on the specifics of the examples, and lose sight of the general questions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why the Chief Justice would have to part of the conspiracy. The Chief Justice may preside sure, but as far as I can tell, this role doesn't give them veto rights anymore than they have over the Supreme Court itself. If 2/3 of the Senate wanted to remove the president for an invalid reason, the Chief Justice could push and cajole them to do the right thing etc etc and even go to the people saying what was going. But they ultimately couldn't stop it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think conspiracy is missing the point anyway as it suggests some degree of malice or improper behaviour. Sure this could happen e.g. mismatched socks. However it could also simply be a legitimate good faith differing interpretation since as clpo13 already pointed out, people have argued that before. And since as 71 pointed out, the Supreme Court seem to have decided it isn't in their purview to review, there's no clear ultimate authority on the correct interpretation other than the Senators themselves and their constituents. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Against my better judgement, I will give an example. And I'd prefer the replies to focus on the general question (and not the specifics of the hypothetical example). We have a newly elected President. Let's say that some 25 or 30 or 40 years ago, that President was in college. He raped several women in the dorm. Or he served as the "drug supplier" for the college dorm. Or he robbed ten banks to pay for college. Or he created child porn videos. Or whatever. All of these statutes of limitations have passed. None of these incidents were prosecuted, much less brought to conviction. The news comes to light after he is elected president. And the crimes were certainly not while serving in the office of President. If these were committed while in office, he would certainly be impeached. If these were known during the election campaign, he would certainly never haven been elected at all. That's the idea I am getting at. Now, he is elected. Now, these past crimes come to light. Now, these crimes cannot be prosecuted. Is "impeachment" completely off the table? Are there other mechanisms to remove him? Or would we be "stuck" with him? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While we are getting into the world of "what if's", I would say that had something like this come to light, most more than likely you would see the president step down, like Nixon did. If anything the president would be finished, as none of his policies would carry any weight (after all who would support him!), and the public outcry would be large to say the least. It's possible that impeachment COULD be sought, perhaps under the guises of lying about crimes committed in the past (that yes were not prosecuted, but still occurred). Of everything, I would suspect the president would ste p down. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Two thoughts. (1) I thought that it was pretty much the accepted wisdom that Nixon resigned only because he knew impeachment was certain. In other words, if there were indeed no possible threat of impeachment, he likely would not have resigned and would have maintained his innocence. It was the threat of impeachment -- and its near certain (inevitability of) conviction -- that "forced" him to resign. (2) In my scenario, no one said that the President "lied" about his prior conduct. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly with RickinBaltimore. I don't see how we can answer this any more than we already have (several times) namely that some people say it's possible, some people say it isn't and plenty of people who say ultimately t doesn't actually matter what the law actually say or what we think the law allows. Since the Supreme Court probably isn't going to rule on it, the ultimate authority on whether this would be allowed would most likely be the Senators (and therefore the people electing them) voting on whether to remove the president, and the House representatives voting on whether to impeach before them. If the existing sources aren't enough there are plenty of others which point out the same thing as those sources, reinforcing what we said [5] [6] [7] [8]. As RickinBaltimore has now clearly said (although I thought was implied by our earlier comments), we can't actually say what will or won't happen since none of us have crystal balls. (Having said that, personally, in the more extreme case I was thinking of, where the President had raped and murdered hundreds of young children including infants, I find it hard to believe from all I've seen of the US Congress that they will simply let it be. Heck even those who may have argued beforehand that they can't remove for crimes committed prior to taking office.) That's of course assuming one of the secret service agents doesn't "accidentally" kill the president. Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Mr. Spadaro seems to be getting confused about is he has the notion that politics and law are programmatic in nature: If X happens, then Y is the expected response. Unfortunately, that's a rather naive view of politics and law; I would suggest for further reading, he might want to start with the concept of Realpolitik. --Jayron 32 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If X happens, then Y is the expected response" is at least a starting point, no? Or is a better approach: "well, there are simply no rules, so whatever happens, happens"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Constitution says that the offense must be while in office, as pointed out above." The problem is that this is not correct. The Constitution doesn't say this. The first sentence of our article says this, but it should probably be changed. The phrase "High Crimes & Misdemeanours" suggests this, as its basic meaning is official misconduct, but a defense of "I only committed treason / took bribes / murdered people before I had this office" does not look like a real winner to me in light of how the clause has been applied.

John Pickering (judge) was the first successful impeachment & conviction and illustrates the wide application of the clause, as he was booted for insanity & drunkenness - "On April 25, 1801 court staff wrote to the judges of the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals to send a temporary replacement for Pickering on the grounds that he had gone insane." IIRC, a major part of the Supreme Court's workload was reversing the drunken & insane rulings. (A precedent which should be better followed :-) So he didn't have too many friends there. Also, Mark W. Delahay says he was impeached for "intoxication off the bench as well as on the bench", including extra (perhaps pre- ?) official conduct - the closest I could find to pre-official conduct.

May a President Be Impeached for Conduct that Took Place Before He Was President? is the best I found on a quick search, with some decent arguments for the answer of yes. The Constitution and Impeachment gives the 2 places in the Constitution & some of the relevant debates on them.John Z (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are helpful links. Thanks. Do you think it would be correct (or not) to take the words "crimes committed while in office" out of the article's intro sentence? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Phrasing it right is hard; but that isn't it, too narrow.John Z (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are the best starting points. As most of the previous comments have been getting at, the best starting point is something like "there are rules, but these rules are often ambigious and unclear so the precise expected response depends on who you ask". As a lawyer, I would have thought you knew this often applies even when you're taking stuff to the Supreme Court who are at least a known entity who theoretically aren't suppoed to let politics come in to it but only the law, let alone when it's entirely in the purview of politicians as appears to be the case for impeachment. (Of course there are some cases when it's clearer or you can say something is clearly not an expected response, but I thought we said several times before John Z that this isn't the case here.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Everything you say is not only true, but also clearly obvious. That doesn't mean that the question is not worth asking. That doesn't mean that the question cannot generate an interesting discussion in seeing where the "correct" answer (or range of answers) might fall. And, this discussion above was a productive one. Not the least of which is the fact that we uncovered that the very first sentence in the Wikipedia article is wrong. (The notion that the crime "must" be committed while in office. Namely, that is, the point of my entire question.) So, I am unclear on what your point is. What I am getting is this: when a question has no clear-cut answer, don't bother to ask the question. And don't have a discussion about it. Because there is no "final" answer. There is no clear-cut answer. Is that your point? You know, it's all about the journey, not the destination. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do they send, when they send a telegram?

When they say: "Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt's president, sent condolences via telegram to Francois Hollande.", or "President Nursultan Nazarbayev send telegram to King Philippe " (of Belgium), what do they mean by telegram? How do they send the condolences? Has 'telegram' become just synonym for 'urgent message', that could be sent by whatever means. Hofhof (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraphy is just an old, expensive kind of E-mail, or E-mail is a modern, cheap kind of telegram. A group of electrical signals. Using a more expensive method is a symbol of caring. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hofhof's point is that in many countries, a telegram service is no longer offered by the dominant telcos - see Telegraphy#21st century decline. So I think we can agree that "sent condolences via telegram" is nowadays more likely to be euphamism for a particular sort of governemnt->government communication where the actual transfer is not a telegram. I don't know the answer, though I note in passing the article diplomatic cable. It seems reasonable to me that there are conventions by which countries communicate one with another, and I suspect that protocols between a foreign ministries and embassies play an important part, such that the commuication may flow from the originating government either to the embassy of the recipient country within the originating country, to be transferred by it to its foreign ministry; or else from the originating government to its embassy in the recipient nation, to be delivered to its foreign ministry. That's all speculation, though. Interesting question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is an euphemism for that matter. Telegraphy makes the communication that more public that the message is materially handled, copied, processed, acknowledged by human hands all along a chain of transfer. The ultimate mark of protocol is guaranteed by the delivery address, which is physical. The public will know that some civil servant has been handing the message personally and will wonder about the particular conditions of that physical scene. --Askedonty (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, the president would send a message to his ambassador in the affected country, by whatever means is quickest (e-mail nowadays, but in decades past that it could be by fax, telex or public telegraph). The Embassy then conveys the message to local authorities through diplomatic channels, either via a note verbale or by handing over the message in person to an appropriate official (e.g. the chief of protocol). The use of "telegram" to describe such an exchange is just a holdover from older times, just like the term "diplomatic cable" linked above. --Xuxl (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite so certain. When India ended its state-run telegraphy service in 2013 [9], it was for reasons of costs when the country paradoxically was still using telegrams the most amongst all nations but it's only about the state-run service, and they kept the international bit of it. The diplomacy channeling pattern sounds more like when the reports write "X addressed a message of condolence to - country." Where France is concerned for example, public figures, obviously without their direct access to a diplomatic network are still using telegrams as a means of publicly addressing the head of state [10](fr) [11](fr). According to this other french subject [12](fr), if the writer, I believe, has not been mixing the genres, President Vladimir Putin ( and presumably others [13](fr) [14](fr) [15](fr) [16](fr) [17](fr)) was using commercial telegraphy for congratulations or condoleances. --Askedonty (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Royal.co.uk, the traditional Queen's telegram for an 100th birthday (etc) is no longer sent as a literal telegram. I think now it's a card.

It is indeed a card, with a photo of the queen - it comes by post, but uses a special delivery service to make sure that the named recipient is still alive. My mother had hers ealrier this year. Wymspen (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC article mentions that the telegrams were at first replaced by telemessages, which I had never heard of before. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the existing services offering "telegrams" have much in common with traditional wireless telegraphy. Looking at the current French service (operated by Orange - http://www.telegramme.com/) I learn that you can either call them by phone, or go on a website. They will then call the recipient by phone, and read your message to them within the hour. They will also send a printed copy - but only using the normal postal service.Wymspen (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They have in common what it takes when the operator does not require of the citizen of changing himself into a 24-7 postal clerk by the need of keeping and maintaining running and up to date a mobile device - like they (anonymous thugs) slammed the phone booth down the alley below so the operator could argue they would not follow regulations and maintain the booth anymore because of costs. --Askedonty (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict)When the domestic telegram service was replaced by telemessage the international service was retained. BT took over the telegram service in 1981 and a different company took over in 2003. Service varies by country and can be checked here: [18]. 80.44.167.110 (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is telemessage? Our article TeleMessage seems to be an ad for something completely different. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the inland telegram service was that it was too expensive to run. It needed telegraph boys to deliver the messages and most people had telephone or telex. The telemessages were phoned in with details of the recipient and how you would like them delivered. They could be printed out like a letter, put in the telemessage envelope, and delivered by the regular postman with the morning mail. That was in the days when everyone got their post by 9:30 AM latest, (first post), with a mid - morning second delivery in urban areas. You could write to someone local in the early morning and your letter would be delivered the same day. Saturdays things were more laid back and there was only one post. Now the Saturday post comes early in the morning, because once the postmen have cleared what arrives in the sorting office overnight they get the rest of the day off. In the early days of the mail collections and deliveries were hourly and there were many throughout the day. 80.44.167.110 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So what was different, basically, is that on the sending end, instead of say going to the post office to fill out a form, you call someone on the phone to dictate the message? And on the receiving end, instead of having a separate telegraphy boy to the postman, it's just combined with the postman? But presumably it was the service format, not the actual transmission technology, that changed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]