Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 29

= April 29 =

Battle of Berlin
Was evidence of large scale rape of german women in the battle of berlin by soviet soldiers supressed in the soviet press? Was the story A woman in berlin also banned in the soviet press? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The Soviet press only reported exactly what the Communist Party wanted people to hear. Any attempt at comparison with Western news agecies is a bit pointless. See Eastern Bloc information dissemination: "The ruling authorities viewed media as a propaganda tool, and widely practiced censorship to exercise almost full control over the information dissemination. The press in Communist countries was an organ of, and completely reliant on, the state." More information in Central newspapers of the Soviet Union and Pravda. So no, I think the chances of them publishing anything that showed the Red Army in a bad light, are infinitesimally small. Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In a bad light? "Why, our soldiers are the strongest in the world!  The most energetic in the world!  The most vigorous!  The most potent!  They never give in!  They never take no for an answer!..." :)  Wnt (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite. I rather suspect that the plight of German civilians would have solicited very little sympathy from ordinary Russians, after being at the receiving end of the Master Race's quest for Liebensraum. ""I ask you: Do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a war more total and radical than anything that we can even imagine today?" Joseph Goebbels in the Sportpalast speech, 1943. Be careful what you wish for. Alansplodge (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan, don't confuse Lebensraum (no i) with Liebestraum. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  05:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh! But good old Wikipedea knew what I meant, it blue-linked to the right page despite the spelling. I'm afraid my knowledge of German is from a less than reliable source ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, the OP is talking about A Woman in Berlin  Rojomoke (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Beevor claiming to authenticate a diary by text analysis is certainly "interesting;" I await his publication on the matter in a scholarly journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Mildred Harris Chaplin and Edward VIII - an affair, or a Wikipedia myth?
Tidying up an article today, I was checking a link and came across Mildred Harris, which claimed that she had had an affair with Edward VIII (then the Prince of Wales) circa 1920. They certainly met in 1920, but the cited source doesn't bear out anything more than them having danced at a reception, and googling around doesn't seem to find anything that might have been sourced from Wikipedia in the first place.

On the other hand, it's certainly not implausible; the Prince had an awful lot of affairs (real and rumoured), they're often not mentioned individually in biographies, and the tabloid gossip-press of the early twentieth century is one of the things that doesn't get digitised very well. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other? Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 15:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This site doesn't mention her. (I do like the title though!)--TammyMoet (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

== What are the legal measures in place on an international level to deal with internet pornography, gambling, and others? Twirp2012 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC) ==

There have been many efforts to deal with internet pornography, internet gambling, and other internet crimes, on a national level. What is being done in these areas on an international scale?Twirp2012 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography


 * Interpol is active in combatting 419 scams and other internet fraud.
 * For gambling, the World Trade Organization's rules have been invoked on online gambling. But there's not much in the way of specific international agreements, presumably because the US and other countries differ so much. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See Universal jurisdiction. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appointed from academia
I am trying to determine the names justices of the U.S. Supreme (past and present) who were appointed to the court while actively serving in a college or university as a professor, dean or other academic position -full or part time. Thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.92.125 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely (though not impossible, just unlikely) that such a list has been specifically compiled exactly as you wish, so you're best route is to do some research yourself. Category:United States Supreme Court justices lists every supreme court justice (also check the nested category for chief justices) and there should be enough of a biography for each for you to comile your own data.  -- Jayron  32  19:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For biographies of current Justices, see http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx . —— Shakescene (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This isn't directly responsive to your question, but it's been rarer in recent years for U.S. Supreme Court Justices to have courtroom experience questioning witnesses and arguing before juries, which has sometimes led to some odd assumptions about what the parties can reasonably be expected to know (whether you're looking from the point of view of a prosecutor, defendant, litigant, defense lawyer, trial judge, police officer or news reporter). Sandra Day O'Connor worked for or as the district attorney in San Mateo County, California and Maricopa County, Arizona (Phoenix), while, as the Attorney-General of a small state, New Hampshire, I think that David Souter may have prosecuted some cases personally. Sonia Sotomayor has also had practical trial court experience. But most of the justices in recent years seem to have been appellate judges (on a state supreme court or a United States Court of Appeal) whose previous experience was either as an appellate lawyer or in academia. Thurgood Marshall and Elana Kagan were both Solicitor General of the United States. Charles Evans Hughes was governor of New York, and Earl Warren was governor of California. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Earl Warren was assistant city attorney of Oakland and Alameda County District Attorney, it's likely that would have involved courtroom experience. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'm sure that's true (although I should refresh my memory from his memoirs). I mentioned Hughes and Warren, as I mentioned the former Solicitors General, more because they weren't appointed from academia or directly from another bench. But I didn't make a clean transition on the page or in my mind from my previous point about trial experience. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Scalia was an academic before he became an appeals court judge, though he almost certainly had practical trial experience while at Jones Day and did argue 1 case before the US Supreme Court (he won). Felix Frankfurter was appointed to the Court from Harvard Law School.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Women as the fairer sex?
thumb|Our article on [[Quantum Leap mysteriously doesn't mention the way Scott Bakula, with softly coiffed hair, ends up briefly naked or semi-naked in just about every episode that isn't about racism. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC) ... Maybe because to do so would be original research? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC) ... Must find scholarly discussion of female gaze in 80s scifi... we should probably leave this caption box now. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC) ]]

Hi, women have been called the "fairer" sex. I don't know the exact meaning of the term, fair, or which it originated. But as a heterosexual straight boy, I realize that I find girls way more visually attractive then boys. I wanted to know if it is just accepted that girls look better than boys and if so, do girls find boys as visually attractive as boys find girls (or more scientific terms-male to female etc.).

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.19.48 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Fair" is a word that, over history, has had lots of related (and not-so-related) meanings, and it is quite likely that the original author of the phrase may have intended several of them at once. For some examples, "fair" can mean "pale" or "light colored" (as in "fair skinned"), it can mean just or equitable (as in "that's a fair cop"), if can mean dainty or slight of build, it can mean "within the rules" (as in a "fair ball" in baseball), there are lots of possibilities, and it may be quite likely that the term encompasses multiple of these definitions.  -- Jayron  32  19:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the more oft-used term is "the fair sex". "Fair" originally meant beautiful or pleasant, and all it's other meanings derive from that in some way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't want to inhibit your enthusiasm, but many people considered expressions such "fair(er) sex" / "the fair (one)" etc. to refer to women to be a rather hackneyed cliché long before the rise of modern feminism... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Evolution has seen to it that, on average, males find females more attractive than males, and vice versa: see sexual selection. At the same time, many people can appreciate the appearance of members of their own sex even without being attracted to them (and of course there are some people who are attracted to members of their own sex). I think that the criteria for male and female beauty are somewhat different (though both are to some degree cultural), and most people would not try to find an objective comparison between the attractiveness of men and women. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, 98, I think you'd actually find this article helpful in broadening your perspective . Embarrassingly, both my pictured examples are mentioned. Or this one on the role of Star Trek in the development of fandom and vidding (the Original Series was pretty equal opportunities in terms of eye candy). I actually thought it was pretty funny that our article on Quantum Leap didn't mention the nudity, given the amount of unsourced observations that are in the article. It's not Original Research just to note the contents of a TV show... ;) 86.140.54.3 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's possible "fair", which is also synonomous with blonde, dates from ancient Rome where blonde hair was considered a symbol of beauty; many of the women (who were mainly brunettes) either dyed their hair or wore blonde wigs made from the hair of German women.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In traditional English usage, "fair" was by no means synonymous with blonde. It could sometimes mean "good looking" generally.  If "fair" was contrasted with "dark" (as in "tall dark and handsome"), a number of things would be relevant (hair, eye-color, slight variations in Caucasian skin tones, etc.), and the word still would not really be synonymous with blonde (though often implying blonde). AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just go along to any newspaper shop and compare the number of pictures of women to men even in the women's magazines. No real competition there as to which type image sells better. Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is something always made me curious. Even after the beginning of the era of gender equality, why do the magazines are edited keeping male readership in mind? Why don't the mags emphasizes male beauty keeping women readership in mind? Why do male models have less demand than women models (proved from the fact male models are paid less)? Don't women like to watch pictures of male physique? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  15:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * They obviously do, in certain contexts, as you can see if you examine some of the covers of romance novels (see Fabio etc.); however, there still seem to be some differences in how physique-admiration manifests itself among women vs. among men, as seen from the fact that Playgirl magazine once discontinued full frontal male nudity, since this seemed to be attracting a gay male readership more than the intended female readership (from perusing the article Playgirl, it seems that the magazine is now resigned to having a significant gay male readership....). AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL. Do the women's mags attract lesbian readership? Just curious :) -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  02:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems hard to picture that one sex can be more attractive than the other in general; after all, roughly equal numbers of people prefer either. More interesting is the question of whether parts of one sex are prettier.  For example, that men have nicer arms, but women have better butts. :)  I wonder if anyone has made up a table of all the specifics - I would guess some people should be able to agree on these things, but I don't actually know. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also not to forget, the archetypal traits come from a patriarchal dominated society virtually, if not entirely, across the globe.Lihaas (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mayor of London
Brian Paddick's manifesto for Mayor of London includes a pledge to introduce "tough payback sentences" (ie. getting people convicted of criminal offences to work in the community). Does the London Mayor have authority over criminal sentencing? Isn't London subject to the same sentencing guidelines as the rest of England and Wales? Unfortunately, our article on the mayoralty doesn't go into much detail about what powers they have. --Tango (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but in the US, we have a separation of powers, such that its not uncommon for sentencing guidelines to be passed by legislatures, like California's three-strike rule, perhaps at the request or promise of some elected governor with the influence of their political "mandate" to do so and it takes someone with enough political headwind tailwind to do this. Of course, even then, the judiciary and the state and federal constitutions usually have considerable say as to what's acceptable. I suppose that this guy seeking the mayor-ship, who does not appear to be a career politician, seeks a similar influence.  --Modocc (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is, London doesn't have its own legislature (the London Assembly just scrutinises the work of the mayor, it can't actually pass laws). Only a fairly short list of powers are devolved from the national government and legislature to the mayor, and I didn't think sentencing was one of them. --Tango (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not having the actual power and authority to do something doesn't mean that a politician will not make grandiose claims in order to get elected. I think every politician since the very first election in history has made claims about what they will do in office, and these claims rarely have any connection to reality when checked against the delineated powers availible to that office.  They all do this.  It doesn't matter if the Mayor of London can actually bring about the changes that he promises, he merely has to make the promise so that he'll get the votes.  What he does once in office, and doesn't have to pander any more, are entirely unrelated to what he does while campaigning.  It's actually better that he makes claims he can't accomplish, since he can then put the blame on others ("I tried to get these new laws passed, but the people who actually should have made these laws opposed me!  Elect me again, but throw them out!")  -- Jayron  32  19:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand it from the point of view of the candidates. From the point of view of me, a voter, though, I'd like to know if he can actually do what he is pledging to do. I know no candidate is going to do everything they say they will, but there are things in his manifesto that he definitely can't do then that would count strongly against him in my book. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you are more rationale than the preponderance of voters, who mostly make electoral decisions based on tribal affiliations (such as membership to a political party or the candidates stance on emotionally charged but otherwise inconsequential issues) rather than who will actually do the job the best. -- Jayron  32  17:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. Offender Payback is a species of probation, which in London is overseen by the London Probation Trust. That's part of the National Offender Management Service, which is part of the Ministry of Justice, which means they work for Ken Clarke. LPT works with, but not for, the London Crime Reduction Board, which the mayor chairs (ref). In January the mayor became the Police and Crime Commissioner for London (ahead of other parts of England, who don't get PCCs until November). The powers and responsibilities of the PCC are listed here - still not directly probation either.  So no, the Mayor doesn't have powers over how the probation is done. But that doesn't mean the Mayor doesn't have lots of influence (and a brief look at other mayoral candidates shows them also saying stuff about payback, so it's not an overstatement confined to Paddick). In practice those doing community payback often end up working for the mayor (often by means of the social work department) - picking up litter, cleaning old folks centres, etc., tasks some have criticised as Misfits-like makework. And many offenders (including I think all young offenders) are managed by an inter-departmental team that includes the social work department and the probation service, and the relevant borough's Community Safety Partnership also influences how things are done (and those usually have several people who work, eventually, for the mayor) - for example, the Richmond CSP website is here (I imagine they're seeing a worrying uptick in top hat related crimes...).  So the mayor is in some position to influence what offenders do, and obviously enjoys an effective bully pulpit. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the mayor can influence the London's district members of the House of Commons to introduce significant top-down changes? Maybe there are some precedences for that sort of influence? --Modocc (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) I heard a discussion on BBC Radio 4 a few weeks ago about the referendums over elected mayors for other cities, where one speaker was arguing for a No vote because the powers of the proposed mayors have not been laid out. From what he said, there is an expectation that once in office, Mayors would ask for additional powers to be devolved to them. Having said that, I wouldn't think that sentencing policy would be among these. --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For completeness, worth noting that Mayor of London, which OP is asking about, is an existing post, with existing powers, whereas Mayor of, say, Bristol, is subject to the 'new post, who knows what they'll be allowed to do' problem --Saalstin (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This practice seems widespread: "The UK Independence Party candidate for Mayor of London has defended making policy pledges which he would not have the power to deliver". --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I get the impression that many of the promises being made (even those that fit within the mayor's responsibilities) cannot be kept without support from the London Assembly (which can apparently amend the Mayor's budget with a 2/3 majority), the London boroughs, and the national government. In any case, if caught pledging to do X outside their remit, the candidates can simply say "I will lobby the Borough Councils to do X" or "the Mayor should obviously be responsible for X, and I will persuade the government to allow this".  An example of this: this article mentions that Boris Johnson has been talking about increasing the level of central government spending on London relative to the rest of the country (something obviously a long way outside the Mayor's powers).  Actually, looking for relevant articles has convinced me that London's system of local government is really, really stupid - the various bodies themselves seem to be unable to clearly explain what they are responsible for, so it is unsurprising that Wikipedia's attempts are less than explicit.  At least none of it is as crazy as the City of London Corporation (in which you can stand for election if the incumbents let you, and you can vote if you are appointed by one of the City's businesses). 130.88.73.65 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)