Humanities desk
< March 10	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 12 >

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.

March 11

Jury vs expert panel

From the point of competence, why a jury composed of basically random citizens rather than, for example, a multidisciplinary panel of forensic and law experts, has been historically entrusted to hand down a verdict? Also when compared to the fact that the judge, prosecutor and defense lawyer are typically professionals. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the jury article which you linked, I think you'll discern the reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, the issues at hand in a trial usually involve many aspects needing discernment that are not an issue of expertise (the trustworthiness of the declarations of parties and witnesses; the motives behind actions; the construction of possible timelines from the snippets of evidence). Then, for almost any aspect requiring expertise, one can find pairs of "experts" staunchly holding diametrically opposed opinions. Who is to determine which experts will sit on the jury? It takes one to know one. It is often not even clear in advance which areas of expertise are relevant. Finally, while these days you can easily find multitudes of "experts" on almost any conceivable topic, enough to impanel a jury, historically, also in modern times, there may have been a dearth of such experts. --Lambiam 13:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my own limited experience as a juror, I observed that the lawyers tried to weed out anyone who might have a vested interest in the subject matter of the trial. In short, to weed out the so-called "experts" who might have a bias. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On this point, see People C. v. Maragh. --Lambiam 14:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent example. I just wonder how the new trial turned out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kure eponym

According to our article Kure Atoll, the name Kure is that of a Russian navigator who sighted it. Do we know anything more about this chap? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Russian Geographical Society, the atoll was discovered by Russian admiral Mikhail Stanyukovich [ru], but there's no mention of why it was named so. This book says "it was named [...] after a Russian captain who visited the atoll on the Moller in 1827" and that "captain Kure may also have been the first to land at Midway Islands, which he visited in 1825, but the records of his journey are incomplete". Elsewhere I had difficulty with finding more info. Brandmeister^talk 21:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Per Isles of Refuge by Mark J. Rauzon, "no one knows who first wrecked at Kure Atoll. [...] Captain Benjamin Morrell Jr. of the schooner Tartar definitely claimed Kure in 1825" and "there are no records available to confirm the alleged discovery of this island by the Russian navigator Captain Kure". The book says the atoll has been commonly named Motu Papapapa and Ocean Island since the end of the 19th century until the name "Kure Atoll" was adopted by the US Board on Geographic Names. The Geographic Names Information System perpetuates this navigator Kure story and one may wonder where did the Board on Geographic Names get this from. Brandmeister^talk 22:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp, Andrew. The Discovery of the Pacific Islands. p. 107. cited by that Smithsonian bulletin above says we are looking for Krusenstern, A. J. (1836). Supplémens. St. Petersburg. pp. 109, 162. OCLC 41683061. for the "vaguely reported discovery". fiveby(zero) 01:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Kure may be a corrupt variant of Krusenstern. Brandmeister^talk 07:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read Sharp as meaning that Krusenstern in 1836 made the suggestion that the island Stanikovitch discovered in 1827 was the same island as that called Curé, not that he, Krusenstern himself, had vaguely discovered it. DuncanHill (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stanikovitch or Stanikowich is mentioned in Friedrich Benjamin von Lütke as "Mikhail Nikolaievich Staniukovich", of the sloop (some sources say corvette) Möller. Some sources have Lütke as Litke. DuncanHill (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sites and works attributing the name to Staniukovich are seemingly incorrect, ~~think i saw somewhere that~~ Möller was on a circumnavigation through 1829[1], Krusenstern had published the first version of Recueil de Mémoires Hydrographiques with the name ISLE CURE by 1827. fiveby(zero) 13:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krusenstern has Patrocinio from Zipiani and Cure from and unknown source in 1827.
In 1835 Supplémens au Recueil de mémoires hydrographiques he has additionally reports of the islands Staver, Ocean, Massachusetts and based on the report of Staniukovich's visit in 1827 states that Staver, Ocean, Massachusetts, (and maybe Patrocinio) are all the same as the earlier vaguely reported Cure.
Can't find Supplémens or l'Atlas de l'Océan Pacifique 1827 or 1835 so don't know if he had Byer and Morrell, but if not a fabrication by "the biggest liar in the Pacific" per Stommel then they were Midway(Byer) and Kure(Morrell)

Krusenstern may be the only source for our Russian navigator Curé. Supplémens or maybe OCLC 81180387 on the slim chance of a reader at Hilo or maybe a Russian speaker could do better? fiveby(zero) 15:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Russian Wikipedia, Stanyukovich discovered the atoll in 1820. However, this is contradicted by their article on Stanyukovich, Mikhail Nikolayevich, which states he discovered it when circumnavigating the world during 1826–1829. Our article Laysan, an island between Kure and Hawaiʻi, states that Stanyukovich mapped Laysan in 1828, so this must have been the year he sighted Kure, later than Morrell. The atoll was annexed to the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1886 and only officially named Kure Island in 1924, so Kure may have been a Hawaiʻian name. --Lambiam 21:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 1833 the atoll is listed as Cure’s island.^[2] The pronunciation, and the French spelling Curé, suggest that the namer was not Anglophone. The French spelling is probably due to Krusenstern's Supplémens, written in French, being a widely used source. While indexed by GBS,^[3][4] we are not afforded a view. Not found on the Internet Archive. --Lambiam 22:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The island about which Rauzon writes confidently that Captain Benjamin Morrell Jr. of the schooner Tartar definitely claimed Kure in 1825 and found sea turtles, including two hawksbills, and “sea elephants” in abundance, is none other than the mysterious Morrell's Island. Just compare Rauzon's decription with that of Morrell, and read on in Stommel's Lost Islands: The Story of Islands That Have Vanished from Nautical Charts. --Lambiam 23:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently confirmed. As we can see, Rauzon is describing a coralian reef, more recently the local gov indeed, Papahanaumokuakea defines Kure as "the northern-most coral atoll in the world". --Askedonty (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I really need to work on my lack of writing skill if that wasn't clear from above, (guess it wasn't). By the way Krusenstern doesn't put an acute on Cure in 1827, tho he does for other islands in the index. The Smithsonian bulletin has 1827 for Stanyukovich at Kure, but Bryan has March 12, 1828 on Laysan (maybe someone erroneously added a year to a Russian old-style date.). Doubtful it a Hawaiʻian name, you've French don't you (Lambiam or Askedonty)? Could you take a look at page 4 L’Amiral Loewenorn vient de me communiquer one liste... and if he is saying all the names in italics were from Nantucket Inquirer[5]? fiveby(zero) 00:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The manner of describing his organizing data, yes, that is how Admiral says --Askedonty (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cure or Kure is the English translation of hoʻōla, meaning "salvation" (and "cure" "the noun form of to cure" or "healer" with its second sense). See hoʻōla. Which, according to our article, is also called Hōlanikū. Meaning “bringing forth heaven”. (Google translate [6] is Holland interestingly). Modocc (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hōlanikū in Fornander tale of Aukele, Here are two lands on these two ape leaves, a large land and a small land; a warm and hot land, and a cold land. These two lands, however, Holaniku and Holanimoe, are very beautiful lands and they possess everything necessary for the comfort of mankind; they possess food, fish, sugar-cane, potatoes, bananas, awa, breadfruit and all other things good to eat.[7](and see footnote) and[8]. fiveby(zero) 01:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC) @KAVEBEAR:? fiveby(zero) 01:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fornander has: Holani-ku and Holani-moe, corresponding to East and West Holani, also occurring in the chants as Helani; refers to the island of Ceram... fiveby(zero) 02:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If all names in Krusenstern's le tableau ci-dessous (the table below) are on the list from the Nantucky [sic] Inquirer, then so are the names in italics. Where Krusenstern writes, "On my map all islands drawn from this list are additionally marked with the letters D. A. or d. a. American discovery" just before presenting the table (apparently spread out in several sections), this appears to imply the table represents this list, but this is not entirely explicit. --Lambiam 11:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the names in italics in Krusenstern's list are on the Reynolds 1935 list, Krusenstern's are E. longitude and Reynolds W. longitude and it looks like different prime meridians, and probably some different interpretations of multiple sightings (Entre trois determinations de longitude qui ne different entr’elles que de 28', la moyenne sera 181 0 35' ) by one of both from the original 1925 Nantucket Inquirer. I think Brandmeister was probably correct and someone screwed up here and invented our "Russian navigator". Let's move the article. fiveby(zero) 13:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today I've emailed the US Board of Geographic Names requesting more info. Will wait for the reply. Brandmeister^talk 14:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiʻi State Board on Geographic Names might have more interest. fiveby(zero) 15:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawaiʻi Board has replied, but the only clarification is that in 1835 Krusenstern synonomizes all the written accounts, coordinates, and names to be referring to the same place and categorically unifies them under "Cure Island" ([9], per Paul Woodward, The Natural History of Kure Atoll, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Atoll Research Bulletin, no. 164, p. 3, this was prompted by Stanikovich's discovery in 1827 of a small, low, dangerous island at 28°27′N, 178°23′30′′). If so, Krusenstern should have explained somewhere the meaning of Kure/Cure. Meanwhile the navigator Cure story is also parroted in Elbert Mookini Pukui, Place Names of Hawaii. Brandmeister^talk 08:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have access to all the necessary documents so can't be sure, but i think Krusenstern did explain as best he could in 1827: Loewenorn sent me this article from Nantucky Inquirer, and someone latter misread the sources. That article was probably published with "Cure's Island" and a number of sightings and if eponymous most likely Cure a Yankee and not Russian.

It's aggravating isn't it, in a number of ways. The Kingdom annexes the atoll, tries to provide a service to mariners and names it Mokupāpapa (details probably found in Russ Apple OCLC 81180387 cited by Rauzon), but "Not Cure, Ocean, nor Papapa" and "C.S. prefers Kure Atol" (maybe Charles Swift Sloane though he had been dead a year?) The fiction of "Navigator Kure" better than an awkward Papapa for English speakers. That's my story anyway, but it's as fictional as Kure until someone qualified does some work. Mark Rauzon might still be teaching[10] he or RDK Herman[11] might know someone qualifed and would care enough to erase the myth. fiveby(zero) 13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Must have had some brain issue when i saw this before, it's 1835 but Jeremiah N. Reynolds seem to claim this list "a list of the discoveries of our enterprising and careful navigators...drawn from purely original sources; nothing has been received at second hand. I have examined the log books, journals, maps, and charts of the navigators themselves, and in most cases have questioned them personally" with Cure's Island, (low and dangerous,) 28 deg. 25 min. north latitude, 178 deg. 42 min. west longitude. Combined with Krusenstern's list and names in italics it beginning to look like maybe the name came from Nantucket and not Russian at all. fiveby(zero) 04:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nantucket newspaper article dated 7 March 1825 The Nantucket Inquirer, issue of 7 March 1825 Jeremiah N. Reynolds, the compiler and author of the 1828 report Laysan Island: A Confused History (blog) fiveby(zero) 04:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The McNamara fallacy and Yankelovich's 1972 Corporate Priorities study

The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes [...]
The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.

— Daniel Yankelovich (?)

Somebody asked about this on this Reddit thread. The page McNamara fallacy credits the quote to Daniel Yankelovich, "Corporate Priorities: A continuing study of the new demands on business" (1972).

Does this "Corporate priorities" study, widely cited, and described in detail in the Bell Telephone Magazine, still exist anywhere?
Is it right to attribute the quote to Yankelovich, or is he in fact quoting McNamara? I guess he isn't quoting, wouldn't make sense. Would still like to see the context, though.

Update: I've now found a 1971 source for the quote (an article written by Yankelovich in *Sales Management* trade journal), so this is partly resolved. The older version of the quote is shorter, though, and lacks remarks on each step such as "this is OK as far as it goes". Card Zero (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the study was the first report of a series, reporting the results of a commissioned study conducted by the research firm Daniel Yankelovich, Inc. to the corporate sponsors but not published to a wider audience. The article in Bell Telephone Magazine refers to "the first Corporate Priorities Study", "the initial Corporate Priorities Study", and further to "the Corporate Priorities Study" or even just "the Study" and does not explicitly mention a subtitle of the report, but the text makes clear that this first report focuses on demands. The longer quotation can be traced back through a chain of citations to A. Smith, Supermoney, New York: Random House, 1972, p. 290.^[12] But while "Adam Smith" ascribes the quotation to Yankelovich, they do not identify a written source. An early appearance of both the report's full title and the longer quotation is found in: S. Prakash Sethi, "Corporate Social Audit: An Emerging Trend in Measuring Corporate Social Performance", a chapter in: Dow Votaw, S. Prakash Sethi (1973), The Corporate Dilemma: Traditional Values Versus Contemporary Problems, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0131741934. The report is cited in a footnote on page 221 as: Corporate Priorities: A Continuing Study of the New Demands on Business (Stanford [sic], Conn.: Daniel Yankelovich, Inc., n.d.),^[13] but the McNamara Fallacy is only presented on page 228, where it is cited to: Daniel Yankelovich, “The New Odds,” a paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Marketing Strategy Conference of the Sales Executives Club of New York, October 15, 1971.^[14] My provisional conclusion is that later citations have mixed up things, and that the quotation is most likely not found as such in the report on the study. --Lambiam 12:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That title is interesting, because the 1971 article "Interpreting the New Life Styles" which is my best available source refers to "the odds" a lot, in a somewhat forced way, and the reason for that is because the magazine it appeared in had this on the cover:

MARKETING AGAINST THE ODDS What are the odds? What are the best ways to sell against them? Leading marketers answer these questions ...

And so all the 12 people who wrote articles for this "SPECIAL REPORT" had to include some reference to "the odds", even if it seemed awkward in relation to what they actually wanted to talk about. This was in November. So it seems very likely to me that "The New Odds" was a first draft of the same article. Card Zero (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]