Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 April 4

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 4

"The infantry is the army..."

In Churchill, Winston S. "XVI: The German Concentration in the West". The World Crisis 1911-1918. Vol. II. London: Odhams Press Limited. p. 1268. Churchill writes "Wars have hitherto been conducted by infantry, cavalry and artillery, and these are the three recognized arms of the service. It has also been observed with some truth that "the infantry is the army, and uses the other arms as its adjuncts"." I believe he uses a similar phrase in The Hinge of Fate. What is the origin of the "the infantry is the army..." phrase or idea? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Inexpertly I suggest he means, the infantry is the army, as one might say, the people are the nation, differing emphasis noted and sustained. ~ R.T.G 01:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Duncanhill -- In medieval Europe, infantry was often considered auxiliary to cavalry, but with the development of the pike square, and later the widespread use of individual firearms, it was cavalry which came to have a mainly auxiliary role... AnonMoos (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Here the phrase is attributed to General Charles Antoine Morand, an officer of the Napoleonic era, so he presumably came up with it. You can find his version, in French, here: "L'infanterie est l'armée, les autres armes ne sont qu'accessoires".  --Lambiam 08:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Lambiam: that is what I was looking for. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I've seen a similar idea attributed to Machiavelli (something along the lines of "cavalry are useful for scouting and harrasing the enemy, but it is infantry that wins the battles that decide the fate of nations"), but I having googled "Machiavelli on infantry" I haven't found it. In fact, while I found a number of uncited claims that M. favoured infantry over cavalry, this excerpt from his Art of War seems to suggest he thought them equally important. Iapetus (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Biden campaign

Hi,

I'm not Dem or Rep (I'm European) and I don't want to discuss about politics. I just want to ask something about Biden (not his politics, just the man). It feels like is really really really old and he's very confused sometimes. Why does his party still pushes him to do something he obviously can't do anymore? Did it happen before in the history of the US politics? Ericdec85 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A succinct quote from the quick read of this article:

Party actors from elected officials to local activists decided within a few days to coalesce around an imperfect but broadly acceptable alternative to Sen. Bernie Sanders, whom many feared would drag them to defeat in down-ballot races this fall.

2606:A000:1126:28D:45FB:B8D6:454E:EF01 (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

EricDec85 -- Biden is garrulous and anecdotal more than feeble and confused. It could be a liability in going up against some other candidates, but not really when Donald Trump is his opponent... AnonMoos (talk)

In the event that Biden is unable to accept the nomination or run for president, the delegates of Democratic National Convention will choose another nominee. One narrative says that they are trying to get Biden a majority of the delegates in order to stop Bernie Sanders. Once they've taken control of the process like that, the narrative proposes, they want to nominate Andrew Cuomo, another centrist like Biden but less scattered in front of a camera and maybe better positioned to beat President Trump. Lots of commentators and even Trump himself have remarked on this in recent weeks. They have Cuomo on TV every day giving Coronavirus briefings and he is apparently being well received. Those appearances are supposed to be part of the strategy. Another part is managing the media response to a sexual assault allegation against Biden[1] that is so far being downplayed, but amping it up just before the Convention could generate a pretext to swap candidates. AnonMoos: Biden really does seem to have lost his marbles over the years. Look at some old video of him on youtube and compare it to now. 2601:640:105:1E35:C074:F68C:EEC6:9F48 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

There are also some who view his weaknesses as a potential strength, inasmuch as they will require him to form a strong coalition with broad support, the thinking being that that will cause voters to support candidates further down the ticket and into the midterms. An example of this is this Slate article titled Joe Biden Has Cured Democrats of Their Belief in a Savior President where they contrast Obama's strong turnout of 69 million voters in 2008 with the rather tepid turnout of less than 40 million democratic voters in the 2010 midterms that followed. They argue that the fact that Biden very clearly can't be a single handed savior, as many believe Bernie Sanders could be, is actually something that will strengthen the party as a whole. "The understanding that Biden can't get this done by himself was implicit in his surge.[...] Instead they described his character, using words like decent, decency, empathy, and dignity--portraying him as, in essence, an American Queen Elizabeth who will project our values gracefully as head of state.[...] The Biden 2020 campaign isn't about following its nominal leader, or even listening to him; it's about the party pushing him over the line collectively--and about making plans to give him the necessary support once he's in office, as Booker's endorsing statement alluded to in references to 'winning races up and down the ballot' and thinking of a presidential victory as the 'floor' rather than the 'ceiling' of Democratic Party potential." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The far-worse accusations against Trump didn't stick either. As to mental state, just try watching Trump for a week to get some perspective. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 08:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The people who came up with such theories sound like the same wackadoodles who came up with the theory that Donald Trump was actually a false flag planted by the Democrats who was going to quit in favour of Hillary Clinton. Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

At the time I wrote the above, I thought the chance Biden would be replaced was so slim, let alone get replaced with Cuomo, was so slim, it wasn't worth worrying about and therefore the obviousness of my statement would be clear over time by the fact it never happened. Since I now think the chance while still very slim, has a slight possibility I might as well mentioned this now to demonstrate it wasn't just something I came up with when it turned out I'm wrong.

The obvious big problem with the suggestion is that it makes quite a lot of assumptions that when analysed make no sense. As per the earlier sources, the Democractic Party began to really coalesce around Biden after his 2020 South Carolina Democratic primary win (some would say it began before) which in part lead to his strong performance in Super Tuesday#2020. At that stage, people were starting to worry more about COVID-19 in the US etc. Still, even for those with access to classified information, it doesn't seem realistically possible that anyone could predict that New York would end up being the epicentre in the US. Sure New York City is one of the places with the highest population densities, and is also a very large population and there is also a lot of international travel to the US so it would probably be one of the top guesses of places that may be significantly affected. But that's a far cry from predicting things would pan out how they did.

Therefore this supposed plan required either some insane conspiracy to ensure things panned out as they did, or a crystal ball of foresight, so that they could ensure they made Andrew Cuomo, someone who didn't run for president, into a possible candidate by ensuring New York was so clearly the epicentre of COVID-19. (I was going to comment on Trump but to be blunt that didn't require crystal ball.) It's possible that some people in the Democractic Party were thinking, 'we can ensure Biden wins, then maybe see if we can replace him with someone else?' That's a very far cry from there being a master plan to ensure he wins then replace him with Andrew Cuomo. I.E. it's a case of putting two and two together and coming up with 1 trillion.

(The Trump-Clinton stuff is similar. I mean there's some evidence that some people in her camp were thinking people like Trump and others of a similar ilk running for the Republican Party would help her campaign. So it's possible that some of them even tried to engineer this outcome although with the particular case of Trump it's not very clear they had any real influence. But clearly he wasn't a trojan horse to destroy the Republican Party and ensure a Clinton victory, since he kept running and won, and is now president and still occasionally yelling about how evil Clinton is.)

Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course as it turns out, the 2606:A000:1126:28D:45FB:B8D6:454E:EF01 was totally right. "sexual assault allegation against Biden" were amped up and he was replaced with Andrew Cuomo. Oh wait, I think I'm getting mixed up somehow..... Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not a fan of either party either, or of any political party for that matter. From the few television interviews of Biden I've watched, I do not get the feeling he has the wherewithal needed for the job. My best guess is that the Democratic establishment is pushing for what they see as the lesser of two evils. Precisely because Biden is weak, he is easily controlled by corporate interests, which is considered desirable by the establishment beholden to those interests. But because of this weakness I also fear that a Biden candidacy will mean four more Trump years.  --Lambiam 08:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll read the Slate article tomorrow (it's late here now) but the description sounds like wishful thinking on the authors' part. Obama was certainly seen as a savior in 2008, though he didn't work out that way in most regards. Sanders' supporters see Sanders as an FDR-like figure, but I don't know if FDR was seen as a saviour rather than just a repudiation of Hoover. The 1932 election besides installing FDR was definitely a huge Democratic sweep in Congress (don't know about state level). I didn't know anything about Hoover til recently, but he seems to have been an amazing character in his own right, per this book review. I can't tell from the review what if anything Hoover really did wrong as President and I'm not up on the history of that period. But Hoover's biography reminds me of Despoilers of the Golden Empire. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It's what Hoover didn't do that doomed his presidency. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 12:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

But, as Enoch Powell once remarked, "All political careers end in failure." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.39 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The usual response to this question, at least among young people, is that both Biden and Trump serve the rich. And to the Dem establishment, they'd rather lose the election than have a socialist president. I'm not sure whether I share this opinion, but it's common. Temerarius (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Temerarius -- Someone not voting for Biden in a November Trump vs. Biden election in order to send a spiteful message to the Democratic establishment would seem to be a rather "privileged" person who is not drastically personally affected by the Trump presidency, and doesn't really care too much about those who are (such as DACA "dreamers", people losing their health insurance, etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For many young and not-so-young people, who were indoctrinated with the American Dream while growing up, the reality in which they live is that their lives are only getting more precarious while they see the rich getting richer, and Wall Street doing fabulous until it doesn't but then the big banks and corporations get bailed out while they are wondering if they will be able to pay next month's rent and worry about the financial disaster if they get laid off or if anyone in the family gets sick and needs to be hospitalized. As they see it, government only cares about big money and does not care about them. They will vote for anyone who makes them believe they are going to change this – "Hope and change"; "Change you can believe in"; "Believe me, you will not be forgotten anymore". They are not privileged, but they are not going to vote for a candidate whose main promise is they will leave the system intact.  --Lambiam 17:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

So they don't vote, and nothing changes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If they don't vote, it is often after voting filled with hope, seeing their preferred candidate win, and then seeing that nothing changes. "It won't happen overnight" – and it won't happen in eight years either.  --Lambiam 08:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

67.164.113.165 -- Hoover lost in 1932 basically because he had somewhat Victorian laissez-faire attitudes, and only let the federal government do so much. Beyond that point, he left everything to local and private charities, and individual stick-to-itiveness and gumption. Many Americans were unimpressed by the contrast between his boldness in his earlier role saving millions of Europeans from starvation in the aftermath of WWI and his timidity as U.S. president. They very much wanted a president who wasn't too sanctimonious to "try something big". Many black people were also annoyed because some of their leaders made a deal not to make a big stink in 1928 about the scandalous abuses in the aftermath of the 1927 floods, if Hoover would treat blacks somewhat favorably when he came into power -- and Hoover broke those promises.

As for Joe Biden, read this Washington Post piece to see someone making the case for Biden's campaign: [2] -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Are the ones who worry about "socialism" OK with the Republican-backed 2-trillion dollar bailout? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Business Names sacked

Famous Last Words

'But if I sit down next to someone...they will think I'm a pervert and glare at me even more...

'Re bags, my favourite incident was when I asked a woman to move her bag so that I could sit down next to her. She huffed and said "look, there's other empty seats over there". As though she could prevent me from sitting next to her! I said "Nevertheless, I would like to sit here, if you don't mind," and waited patiently until, with great reluctance, she moved her bag.' --Richardrj 14:18, 21 August 2006

"Lakehouse will not tolerate acts of unlawful discrimination, derogatory, racist or sexual remarks, innuendoes or racial and sexual harassment towards anyone. If proven, the individual will be permanently removed from site." - Hackney Homes Internal Works Programme, Handbook for residents, page 10 (Romford, Essex, May 2014).

The 1984 European election leaflet distributed by Hackney SDP/Liberal Alliance was printed by "FGM Printing Ltd. High St., Harlesden." The firm featured in the 1976 Kelly's Post Office London Directory (at no.224) and by 1994 it had moved to no. 23. By 2003 it had moved to Gorst Road, also NW10. It is registered no longer, but "FGM ...... Limited" is the name of a number of companies trading now. In the sixties in Oxford there was a car hire company named "Crappers". Are there many businesses with unfortunate names? 62.31.71.37 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

First Potteries bus company from Stoke-on-Trent was called PMT Limited (for Potteries Motor Traction) until 2010. Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

And when I was in insurance years ago, we used to deal with a US company called BJ Insurance Services. Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It took a trip to Wiktionary to work that one out. 62.31.71.37 (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We aim to educate. See also 12 Company Names That Have Hilarious Double-Meanings. Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No PMT on that list, nor PMS which is what we usually hear. Siemens is an old company name and it seems to have survived the imaginations of some observers. And not to be confused with seaman, which means a sailor. And the word semen means "seed", and it wouldn't surprise me if those who might make fun of Siemens are ignorant of that fact. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The name of the slimming sweets Ayds became rather unfortunate, and I think a lot of companies and products called ISIS suffered as well. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Also in the sixties, telephone subscribers (as Post Office Telephones were proud to call them) were proud to acquire STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialling). In historical times, words were written without any spaces between them (when ink and paper are valuable commodities you can save an awful lot this way). This is a feature of some URLs, and there can be misunderstandings, e.g. when a plural is followed by a word beginning "ex-". 80.194.19.177 (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

USA federal and state law question.

I live in Illinois and there is no statute for bank robbery, only federal. I imagine this is common for all the states and no state is allowed to make their own bank-robbery law? 2ndly, there is an overlap with drug laws. But federal drug laws are usually longer sentences then state. What if a state were to up up their drug laws, to like 1.5x the federal (minimum - maximum). Now the state puts the federal government out of business. Are there federal laws that prevent the states from doing something like this? I already know about the Arizona case, in which Arizona made it a state law against being an illegal immigrant, in which they simply incarcerated you for being illegal, and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually struck that law down. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC).

You're making a number of uncited assertions. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 18:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether states can impose harsher penalties than federal laws would? If so, the answer is yes. Temerarius (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the finding that there's a Constitutional problem with criminalizing being an illegal immigrant (maybe it's true--I'm not knowledgeable about this stuff). The reason I've always heard illegal immigration isn't a crime is that criminal defendants are Constitutionally entitled to various rights such as jury trial and free legal representation at trial. Plus then they have to be fed and housed in jail. So instead of it being a crime, it's treated more like an infraction and they toss the person back over the border rather than put them on trial. That is, it's a practical choice made by legislatures, rather than something Constitutionally mandated. 2601:648:8202:96B0:E0CB:579B:1F5:84ED (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that immigration is an exclusive federal government responsibility, so that immigration enforcement attempts by state or local government are "preempted" (see Arizona v. United States). There's no pre-emption of state laws outlawing bank robbery by federal laws outlawing bank robbery... AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Indications are that national banks are subject to federal law enforcement, hence the FBI being brought in. How many Ma-and-Pa banks exist, if any, I don't know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe a "national" bank is one (of whatever size) that participates in the FDIC. —Tamfang (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with BB that the OP's claims seem to be a case of . It may be there is no specific statute or law covering bank robbery in Illinois. I find it highly doubtful there is no statute or law covering bank robbery point blank. This would likely mean laws covering burglary etc would need to be crafted very specifically so they don't apply to bank robberies. In this case for example [3] [4], a bank robber seems to have been charged by the Winnebago County, Illinois State's Attorney and while some of those related to the alleged sexual assault during the robbery, a number are generic charges which could apply to many bank robberies. Technically it was a credit union and not a bank, however again this would require those crimes very specifically exclude banks.

Outside Illinois, in this New York case, a serial bank robber has been charged with both state and federal crimes [5] [6]. I'm not sure that any of the state prosecutions involved banks but again, it seems doubtful that the law will be crafted so specifically to exclude banks. (Looking more carefully the it seems all the incidents involved Chase or Citibank branches so they were all at banks rather than just credit unions.) It could be as a matter of public policy some states decline to prosecute someone if the crime involves a bank, or maybe more likely was a significantly serious crime or crimes and the federal government is prosecuting the person, but that's a different point.

Note that although our article doesn't explain, it seems Bartkus v. Illinois involved a case where the federal government's prosecution failed (jury acquittal), and they then cooperated with the Illinois state government on a prosecution which succeeded, see e.g. [7] [8]. Again the state prosecution seems to have been with more generic laws and although it was a long time ago (Supreme Court case was 1959), I'd be surprised if Illinois changed their laws to make them exclude bank robberies. As an interesting aside, it seems that at least one scholar view conviction under both the (federal) Hobbs Act and the Federal Bank Robbery Act as a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. [9]

The question whether it's worth having a state law specific to bank robberies is likely to very depending on who you ask. But I suspect quite a few would suggest it's unnecessary since there's nothing particularly unique to bank robberies which stop them being handled using other well crafted but more generic laws. Maybe especially with the recognition the federal government will also have an interest. The federal government is in a different situation since they feel they have a unique interest in crimes affecting banks, which they don't have with many other robberies that don't happen in federal territory.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 16:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The feds are only (constitutionally) able to invoke jurisdiction over bank robberies by virtue of the fact that banks are federally insured. My understanding is that if one were to rob a financial institution which is not federally insured (e.g. a payday lender), it would fall purely under state jurisdiction. 2001:8003:52A0:100:6CD4:4D5:2858:233 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure? For the Federal Bank Robbery Act 18 U.S. Code § 2113, this seems to be mostly the case, although I don't think entirely. [10] In particular credit unions insured under the National Credit Union Administration also seem to be covered. Also, it's not totally clear to me if subsection (f) requires the banks are FDIC and I wonder if all are e.g. foreign banks.

But in any case, my reading of the Hobbs Act is it relies on the Commerce Clause and the effects on interstate commerce. This is also supported by my above link/aside.

This may not apply to all robberies of payday lenders e.g. the Eleventh Circuit's hypothetical example where someone tries to rob a public art gallery in a bank but is overwhelmed and doesn't affect their interstate commerce. But as I understand it, "interstate commerce" is controversially interpreted quite widely. So it's likely it could be argued to cover some such crimes in modern times, whether or not it's used in that way. Particularly given the rise of internet shopping.

Maybe more to the point, even for those opposed to such a wide interpretation, to give my own hypothetical example, if someone robs a payday loan lender which causes them to shut down for days during a time when they normally get a lot of cross-border business as they operating on the border of a state with weak regulations right next to a big city in another state with stronger regulations, it would seem that it's not hard to argue this is affecting interstate commerce.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

HMS Turquoise and its captain

What was the the name of the captain of the HMS Turquoise which was in Raiatea in the Society Islands in 1880-81 mentioned here? Who was the French lieutenant ordered to lower the Raiatea flag and on what day did this happen? Any details on the ships involvement in those islands during this period as well. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The captain was Mervyn Bradford Medlycott. [11] There was an Australia newspaper report on the flag incident which was dated 15 November 1880 [12], but could have been before that date. The second article says the Turquoise had been in the islands for over two months, "evidently keeping a check on the movements of their neighbors". --Canley (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The captain‘s name was Mervyn B. Medlycott. According to this news item, the Frenchman was the commander of the war schooner Prohena; no name is given. The protectorate flag was reportedly lowered on 16 October 1880 and the Raiatean national flag was hoisted the next morning.  --Lambiam 07:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe User:70.67.193.176 knows who the French commander of the war schooner Prohena was.KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The full text of the article linked by Lambiam is here:

— Raïatea et la protection française. — On se rappelle que le commissaire-commandant du protectorat des îles sous le Vent avait sur la demande des habitants, hissé le drapeau du protectorat sur l'île voisine de Raïatea. Le 16 octobre dernier, la corvette anglaise la Turquoise commandée par M. Mervyn B. Medlycott, mouillait à Raïatea, et sur sa sommation le commandant de la goélette de guerre française Prohena faisait amener le soir le pavillon français Qui était remplacé le lendemain matin par le pavillon national de Raïatea. Le même jour la Turquoise repartait après avoir salué ce nouveau pavillon de 21 coups de canon.

[Machine assisted translation] "Raïatea and the French protectorate - It is reported that the commissioner-commander of the protectorate of the Leeward Islands had, at the request of the inhabitants, hoisted the flag of the protectorate on the nearby island of Raïatea. On 16 October, the English corvette Turquoise, commanded by Mr. Mervyn B. Medlycott, was anchored in Raïatea, and on its summons the commander of the French warship Prohena took down (?) the French flag in the evening, which was replaced the next morning by the national flag of Raiatea. On the same day the Turquoise left after greeting this new flag with a 21-gun salute".

Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The commander of the Prohena was Lieutenant Salaun de Kertanguy who came on board the Turquoise (unrequested) and informed Medlycott that he was going to lower the French flag at sunset ( Saturday, 16 October, 1880). Medlycott, according to his ship's log, was surprised that Kertanguy was going to do this as he had informed Medlycott that he had no orders from the French governor (Chesse) to do so. See the scanned images of the Turquoise's log here. [13] According to the log, Medlycott set sail next day without a gun salute but indicated he would do so on his return in 16 days if everything had been settled. I haven't gone through the log further to see if the salute went ahead. See also this book (in French) for a French account of the incident (pages 135-8). [14] --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well done Bill. The chap in question was Félix Marie SALAÜN de KERTANGUY (1844 - 1934) who retired in 1904 after commanding a battleship, and according to that source, the name of his schooner was "OROHÉNA ou OROENA". That name appears on this Listes des navires de guerre armés au 23 juin 1888 as Orohéna under the command of a Lt. Clot :-) The name "Prohena" appears only in Google in connection with the flag incident, so must be a typo. Alansplodge (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently Mont Orohena is the name of a 2,241 metre mountain peak in Tahiti, in case you were wondering. Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The French article I linked to continues on the next page. But the rest is not about the incident itself but about the adjacent diplomacy. The original source (L'Économiste français) has even more text, regarding the reaction or lack thereof to this insult of the honour of France.  --Lambiam 20:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Lambiam, can you link the original source (L'Économiste français) that you just mentioned if it isn't linked already and any information about "adjacent diplomacy". Thanks everyone for all the source digging. KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Linked already, but here it is again: https://books.google.com/books?id=P2xJAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA78&dq=%22Mervyn%20B.%20Medlycott%22&hl=en.  --Lambiam 21:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't find that article in anything but "snippet view", but the archive.org link (posted above) to Revue économique française (p. 118) quotes as its source L'Économiste français, although the text does not seem to be verbatim. However, my link continues:

Le commandant gouverneur dû protectorat français à Taïti n'a été avisé que par une communication du consul anglais à Papeete, M. Miller, de l'existence d'une lettre par laquelle notre ministre des affaires étrangères annonçait à l'ambassadeur d'Angleterre à Paris le refus de la France d'accepter le protectorat de Raïatea.

Sans chercher à déterminer les raisons qui ont pu influer sur la décision du gouvernement français, nous croyons que ce dernier a outrepassé ses droits en ne consultant pas le Parlement français sur l'opportunité d'accepter ou de refuser une démande librement faite par les habitants de Raïatea. Qu'on ne nous objecte pas que les traités avec l'Angleterrre nous interdisaient d'accepter ce protectorat, car les mêmes traités nous empêchaient d'annexer Taïti, et nous ne croyons pas qu'on s'en soit beaucoup préoccupé. (L'Économiste français).

"The commander-governor of the French protectorate in Taiti was only informed by a communication from the English consul to Papeete, Mr. Miller, of the existence of a letter in which our Foreign Minister announced to the British Ambassador in Paris that France had refused to accept the protectorate of Raïatea.

"Without trying to determine the reasons that may have influenced the French government's decision, we believe that the French government has exceeded its rights by not consulting the French Parliament on whether to accept or refuse a request freely made by the inhabitants of Raïatea. Let us have no difficulty with [the fact] that the treaties with England forbade us to accept this protectorate, because the same treaties prevented us from annexing Tahiti, and we do not believe that we have been very concerned about it. (L'Économiste français)".

Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is the bit from L'Économiste that Revue snipped off at the end:

Les partisans des interpellations de la Chambre ont une excellente occasion de fournir au Gouvernement le moyen de s'expliquer sur ce que, jusqu'à nouvel ordre, on peut considérer comme une insulte à notre pavillon. Il est à espérer qu'ils ne la laisseront pas passer.

"The proponents of Chamber interpellations have an excellent opportunity to furnish the government with the means to explain what, until further notice, may be considered an insult to our flag. Hopefully they won't let it pass."

As far as I saw, the other textual differences were all a much more liberal sprinkling of commas throughout the original.  --Lambiam 16:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have deposited a transcript of the complete item at User:Lambiam/Raiatea.  --Lambiam 17:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam and Alansplodge: What was the rank of Medlycott? He was called Mr. in the sources. Was he a Royal Navy captain? KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Here he is ascribed the rank of rear admiral. But it is not clear whether he had attained that rank already at the time of the flag incident, when he was 43. Maybe he was even promoted for this keen defence of the interests of the British Empire.  --Lambiam 21:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If this source has its facts straight, Medlycott was already a rear admiral during his visit. In researching the matter, I also saw that he was promoted to the rank of captain on 1 November 1875. Against a payment of just £3.50 you can download his naval record in the National Archives.  --Lambiam 21:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)