Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 10

= July 10 =

Ambassador at large?
Is "ambassador at large" a correct way to refer to Richard Armitage's position from 1991 to 1993? The article says "Following that [1991], he was sent to Europe with the title of ambassador; his assignment was to direct U.S. foreign aid to the countries that had been formed out of the fallen Soviet Union." 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article Ambassador-at-Large suggests that this role would fit the general definition, but it seems from the "United States" section of that article that in the US "Ambassador-at-Large" is a specific title, and it may not be accurate to describe someone as an "Ambassador-at-Large" if that person was appointed by the US but not with that title. From my Googling, his official title seemed to have simply been "Ambassador": see e.g.  or  --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

conspiracy to commit your own murder
kind of out-there question :) say you wanted to commit suicide, but through the mechanism of murder made to look like a suicide (you're chicken, whatever). so, while hiding your identitiy you attempt to hire a hitman to murder such and such a person - you give you rdescritpion, identificaiton etc. and (unbeknonst to the hitman who thinks you're just money) actually it's you.

Can you be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in this case - even though it's you? Is this different legally from attempt to commit suicide? Also, has it happened (references, please :)

Obviously this is a question about legal references - not a legal question. It's just a funny hypothetical. Not asking for legal advice,a nd also it's whimsical in that hiring a hitman would obviously be by far the most expensive form of suicide there is, as well as risky and totally stupid, as well as inaccessible to people.

--91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you believe the source (it is the Daily Mail, so take it with a pinch of salt), it has been done: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've heard or seen fiction where someone was a squeamish suicider and hired a hitman through a contact, then his girlfriend came back or whatever and he changed his mind, but had trouble stopping the hitman. It was an old TV or radio drama. Edison (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bulworth had something along those lines. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

These are interesting actual cases! So, what about the legal references? Anything in case law? Again, not legal advice, just references. :) --91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See Accessory (legal term) for the relevant article. You've reached an agreement with the hitman that murder is to be committed, so you are guilty of criminal conspiracy.  The precise charge you might face (whether you're charged as a conspirator, an accessory, or a joint principal) will depend on jurisdiction and the facts of the case, of course. Tevildo (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you care about fiction, try reading The Man with the Twisted Lip, in which a police officer suggests (facetiously) that Mr St Clair be charged with attempted suicide (apparently suicide-by-execution) after making it look like he was someone else who had killed Mr St Clair. 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The solution is simple; make attempted suicide a capital offense. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be "totally stupid" if your aim was to collect insurance (for your family) which would be invalidated in the case of suicide. In such a case the expense of the hitman might be reasonable. If the plot failed, I guess you could be charged with fraud. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't this the plot of Fletch? -- Jayron  32  19:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost. See hat below. ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  20:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Stanwyk attempts to make Fletch think that is the plan, when actually he plans to kill Fletch and leave Fletch's body (which has exactly the same bone structure as Stanwyk's) in the burning house, so everyone will think Stanwyk is dead, and he can go live on an island somewhere with his secret other family, without anyone trying to hunt him down. Fletch, undercover as a drug-addicted 70's California beach bum, isn't supposed to be missed (as Stanwyk like everyone else thinks he's just another drifter he can kill in peace). I forget the precise details, but somehow there's US$3M involved, in cash, which: everyone is supposed to think burned along with the house; Stanwyk intends to have as his exile nest egg; and Fletch actually winds up walking away with. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler  .☠  20:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See also Suicide by cop. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In the article on Annery, Monkleigh, there is a reference to the historical case of an English judge, Sir William Hankford, who warned his gamekeeper to shoot intruders and was himself killed. It was widely believed to be an effective suicide. --Hors-la-loi 18:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Techniques in person centred therapy
Hi, I was reading up about techniques used in person-centred therapy and have a question. I get the whole congruence, empathy and UPR and core conditions thing that they have going on and I also get the fact that Rogers disliked writing down actual techniques as he believed these should come about naturally as a result of the therapy. But my question is what techniques do person centred therapists actually use during therapy? In order to become a person centred therapist some people take courses that take years to complete, and I can't see people learning about congruence, empathy etc for that long. I read that Rogers was apparently appalled to hear that some people regarded his approach as merely a "technique" rather than an actual school of therapy, but for lack of actual techniques I can't see what else it could be classed as. Does Rogerian therapy basically use relevant techniques it steals from other schools of psychotherapy when relevent and usable?

(Ignore this second part if it is incorrect)

One of my friends (who is studying psychology, albeit at the very beginning of his degree) said that he believed the following technique was employed in Rogerian therapy. He gave me the following example when I requested and example of how a person centred therapist could treat a patient. In addition to the whole empathy, conruence etc thing he said a therapist he knew that was person centred therapist used a model split into four subthemes: behaviours, cognitions, physiology and emotions. Each of these categories was then split into assessment, goals and treatment. E.g. the behaviour section showed that the assessment was the patient's inability to drive, due to the stress from being involved in a car accident. The goals section of this example stated the client should gradually get used to driving again, for example through running small errands or popping over to see friends located nearby. The treatment section said that she should make use of breathing exercises and mindfulness of situations learnt for specific situations.

If this is a correct interpretation of person centred therapy, then where can I read more about these breathing excersizes and the mindfulness?

If this example is false, would somebody be willing to give me their own example? Thanks for any replies on the matter.--91.49.50.115 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Person-centered therapy, mindfulness and meditation are of help here. What you describe seems to be a form of Desensitization therapy. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your reply. I have read the person-centred therapy article and found it wasn't in-depth enough. It doesn't list any techniques or methods at all. Thanks for the tip about desensitization, that's really helpful. Is this a common method used within PCT? --91.49.50.115 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When I studied PCT 30 odd years ago now, there weren't techniques as such. It seemed to be that the therapist's role was to reassure the client that no matter what the client said they wouldn't criticise or judge them: no matter what the client wanted to do the therapist would support them (unless it involved breaking the law). There seemed to be a lot of talking about the client, with the therapist reflecting back to the client in different words and summarising what the client had said, so that the client could listen to themselves and have a dialogue centred on themselves. I remember reading the book "On Becoming a Person" by Rogers,which had a profound effect on me, and I recommend you go back to Carl Rogers' books and read them. I cannot speak for how practice has developed in the 30 years since, unfortunately. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Where might I purchase a particular antique chess piece?
Here's the story: My grandfather and I played chess almost every Sunday afternoon for the last several years of his life. As such, when he died, my grandmother gave me the set. He owned and operated a barber shop and would play chess with this set to fill time between haircuts. The pieces are wooden and old (probably from the 1930s) and they very well may have been a gift from one of his customers (possibly payment-in-kind during the Great Depression). The set never had (to my knowledge) packaging to identify who made it. In fact, my grandfather kept the pieces in an electric clippers box, and then kept the box inside a purple Crown Royal pullstring bag. Being packed with such family history, it is of immense sentimental value. I (foolishly) have kept this set in our coat closet, up above on the shelf (I've been teaching my kids with it); under which is our recycling bin. (You see where I'm going with this.) A few weeks ago the basket was taken out, and the pieces accidentally spilled out. We gathered what we saw, but (also foolishly) neglected to count them to 32. A day or two ago, when we pulled it out again to play, we found that the black king (a rather important piece) was missing. We scoured the closet, looking in coat pockets, cubbies, purses, etc; but to no avail. We decided that it probably fell into the recycling bin, which was emptied into our larger bin, which was then taken away by the big truck. I called WM, our recycling provider, to see if there was any possible chance it might have survived. (It almost certainly didn't.) My question: Does anyone here know of any place or shop or website that deals in antique chess sets, and may be able to sell me just the black king out of a similar set? My neighbor is a wizard with woodworking and is already on the case trying to lathe out a new one, but I'd rather pay for an identical piece than create a similar (but obviously different) one. Any resources/other ideas? Thanks!  Kingsfold  (Quack quack!)  20:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If cost is not an object, you could perhaps find a local craftsman with a lathe or something who could create you one from scratch? Using the White King as a template and the Black King for color, perhaps that would work for you?  -- Jayron  32  20:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean, like my neighbor mentioned above? (Wink.)  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sic transit gloria mundi. For everything else, there's EBay and Amazon.com. Wnt (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but finding an indentical antique chess set (not to mention one particular piece of a particular set) on Ebay or Amazon when I have no information on its provenance would likely be like finding the cliché needle in a haystack of needles. (Shrugs.)  Kingsfold  (Quack quack!)  13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What's Gloria Mundy got to do with this? Does she play chess too?  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  21:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if reverse image searches on photographs of the remaining king, or perhaps the white pieces set in their initial positions, from various angles, might yield a source of the same pieces. Perhaps the loss will serve to emphasize the association and memories as a silver lining in the long run. 75.166.197.187 (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea too. I'll pursue that.  I'm not familiar with reverse image searches.  Is it a website?  Software?  Can you recommend one?
 * Yes-- I keep telling myself that it's just a thing and it doesn't matter. I actually felt like apologizing to my grandfather, and I had weird little (but not seriously considered) daydreams of ritualistically burning the other 31 pieces on a funeral pyre.  Ha.  It will likely be a good object lesson someday in a Church talk or Sunday school lesson.  Ha.  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  13:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The two most used are Google Images and TinEye. Both allow you to upload an image from your PC and compare it with all the other images in their database. You'll probably have most success if you take a series of photos from different angles, in different light conditions, and against different backgrounds, then try each picture on both services. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate to be a downer, but it seems exceedingly unlikely to me that Kingsfold is going to be able to duplicate the setup/background to a high enough degree to match anything ever through a reverse lookup, let alone the one particular set he's looking for. At best - best - he's going to get a zillion chess sets. Kingsfold: forget uploading your own image; that's a wild goose chase; just do a Google image search for "chess set" (or similar) and comb through the results to see if you can find a match. Matt Deres (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I *did* try to comb through Google Images (it was actually the first thing I did after realizing I had lost it), and didn't see anything close in several hundred images. I sincerely appreciate your input (or any input, at this point) but a reverse image search seems no less like chasing a goose than anything else.  (Shrugs.)  Thanks--  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  19:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Was it, by chance, a Staunton_chess_set? I'm not much of a player, but my understanding is that that style would have been near-standard for a very long time. Anyway, if it is Staunton, a suitably old replacement piece should be easy to come by! The knights seem to vary the most among Stauntons, but the kings vary very little. As for reverse image search: that may be tough to pull off with online tools, but a picture of the full white set, and a separate close up of the white king might help here. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't/isn't. In fact, (not that I'm an expert on chess sets, and not that it's a different or modernistic design, but) I've never seen another one like it at all.  It looks rustic enough to make me wonder if it was hand-made (or home-made), but it looks professional enough that I doubt it.  Thanks, everyone.  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  19:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Stirnerian Novel
Does anyone know any novel with strong stirnerian ( philosophy of Max Stirner) background or theme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.222.239.159 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Expert witness in US courts
I get the feeling that expert witnesses in US courts are generally not someone that has a regular job as a scientist or technician, but being an expert witness is their job. Is that true? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? Many expert witnesses are people like forensic scientists and criminal psychologists, who are frequently called upon because they have analyzed evidence and have genuine expertise in the area.  That is, an expert witness in ballistics would have actually done the analysis on a bullet, and would be called upon to report their findings to the court; an expert witness in DNA analysis would have done the actual DNA match and be called upon to report their findings, etc. etc.  That's who most expert witnesses are.  People's whose job it is to analyze evidence and present their findings.  The subtext of your question implies that you find this unacceptable.  Why?  -- Jayron  32  23:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You might have in mind cases like the West Memphis Three, where a quack (with a PhD from a degree mill) was appointed as an expert witness to testify about the occult. Cases like this are famous because the course of justice was perverted, but I would bet that most of them have some occupation related to the field but are not limited to offer their services as expert witness. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My point is that you often have expert witnesses on both sides of a case. The expert witnesses are paid by the side that uses them.  Some seem to be professional "expert witnesses" and may interpret facts in the way that is helpful to the side that pays them.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * on that. This is not the location to make points.  This is the place to ask questions that direct you to references.  If you are here to make a point, perhaps another place somewhere else in the internet would be more appropriate.  -- Jayron  32  23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The point of my question is that I'm asking if (in the US) there expert witnesses that is all that they do. The article mentions them as "hired guns" but doesn't go into detail. And will they take which ever side pays them, or are they objective? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you define "all they do". That is, are there people who literally do nothing else with their entire lives than show up at courtrooms and are expert witnesses?  I can unequivocally say no, that would be ridiculous, as in order to be an expert witness, you'd need to be an expert at something, which would require you to spend some of your waking time doing that thing.  Are there people for whom appearing in court to testify is a significant portion of their professional lives?  Yes, I've cited two job descriptions above, along with police officers, pathologists, medical examiners, toxicologists, etc.  There are many people whose job it is to frequently give testimony about what they do, because that's what they do: they are employed to gather and/or analyze evidence in criminal cases, and because that's what they do with their lives, they are very good at it, and are thus experts.  But that's only because they do the things they testify about. That is, a DNA analyst is trained in, and experienced in, matching DNA samples, etc. etc.  Now, does that mean that never, in recorded history, has there ever once been some nutjob that snuck past the controls and appeared as an expert witness in a trial where they had no business being an expert witness?  No, I'm sure there are anecdotal examples of such events actually occurring, but they don't mean much.  Most people who appear regularly as expert witnesses do so because they actually have a job that makes them an expert in what they are testifying in, and because they have that job, they appear frequently as an expert witness.  The two states go hand in hand.  But they do have to be genuine experts first.  -- Jayron  32  00:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. By "all they do" I meant "as their career".  But suppose it was something like a copyright case, hypothetically a music copyright infringement.  An expert witness is called to say that it does or does not violate a copyright.  Would they get a musicologist who rarely testifies or would there be a professional expert witness, who will argue for the side who is paying him?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know with regards to a copyright infringement case, but "as their career"; how does someone get a career as an expert witness without being an expert in some discipline first, you know, outside of being a witness. How does a court recognize the expert status of someone whose never studied or worked in any field?  Again, I think we can dismiss such notion offhand as not likely enough to even try to refute it beyond its own self-evident unlikelyhood: people who get admitted as an expert witness have to have something on their CV to qualify them as an expert first.  Now, the second part of your question, which is as to whether or not anyone has ever given testimony influenced by financial interests.  Again, I'm sure its happened at least once.  But it is not the normal state of affairs.  -- Jayron  32  02:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bubba73, would information about expert witnesses in the UK, as opposed to the USA, be of any use? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to hear a brief comparison. Thank you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Daubert standard. Is searching that hard for you all? Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are expert witnesses who do that as their main source of income. I was involved in a civil suit where, when each side introduced its witnesses, they questioned them on how much they were being paid and how often they testified as experts, in order to prevent the opposing counsel from asking the same question first and making the expert look even worse.  (We ignored both experts when it came down to deliberation--about $10,000 wasted per side--video one expert took actually strongly supported the opposition's case!)  There are also actual in-the-field experts like my father who testify as either uninterested third parties in a dispute the facts of which are known to them (he would testify as an engineer when the owner sued the architect in a project he worked as contractor) or on occasion when a lawyer who was familiar with him wanted him to testify on a case he was not involved in.  He could have done that full time had he not usually found it so corrupt and distasteful.  I know this is OR, but other than TV or expert witness I am not sure what references one is going to get for this question. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, there are certainly cases such as David Race Bannon where people have been charged with criminal fraud who have impersonated expert witnesses in court and elsewhere. (Warning, that site made my Safari browser crash.) μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to be like that. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  09:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Shadowjams' link is helpful, but it deals only with scientific testimony, not expert testimony in general. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Expert witnesses" by definition give the court assistance on technical matters. What distinction are you trying to draw here? As far as I can see Shadowjams' link is the most useful reference here, and is more generally applicable than the previous answers which narrowly focussed on criminal evidence, for some reason. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have answered yourself: technical, not scientific. I know a famous painter who has testified as an expert witness in civil cases regarding artwork (boiling water is about the closest he ever comes to science) and my father has testified on such things as whether projects were properly scheduled to come in on budget, and whether desired changes required extra time, and hence money, and all sorts of things that required an expert opinion, but not a scientific opinion, per se. I am also unsure where I denigrated Shadowjams' link. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bubba73: for a UK perspective, you might be interested in Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which sets out the rules on expert witnesses in UK civil litigation, and the duties of such witnesses. The duties of expert witnesses were discussed in the Ikarian Reefer case: this page has a summary of the principles discussed there.
 * Basically, the expert is there to assist the court, and is not an advocate. While in practice each side to a case would select an expert witness whose views are beneficial to their case, those must be honest professional views, and lawyers have to make sure the expert understands that they must not become a partisan advocate.
 * Most expert witnesses are noted scientists and academics. Their professional standing lends credibility to their evidence, so someone who is an expert witness "by profession" without being backed up by "actual" credentials is less likely to be a good choice. Of course, some academics are in higher demand as expert witnesses than others, perhaps because they are good teachers who can explain complex concepts well in court, or because they can keep a clear head and not be confused in cross examination.
 * Expert witnesses are paid for their time just as academics on any consulting engagement would be (i.e. at a very high rate compared to mere mortals!) This might be called an honorarium. The more highly qualified and well regarded professionally your expert witness is, the higher would be their rates.
 * Because of the legal rules, and because (i) well respected academics face higher demand as expert witnesses and (ii) one is less likely to be well respected professionally if one gains a reputation for being an unprofessional witness, by and large there is significant pressure on expert witnesses to remain within the bounds of the impartiality required by the law. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is quite informative. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just an extra anecdote, since you particularly mentioned music copyright cases, musician Steve Race appeared as an expert witness at least once in his career, in a case on plagiarism of a tune (I wish I could remember which), and his evidence included his opinion that a very similar tune had appeared in an obscure work by a classical composer a hundred years before the claimed originator who was suing someone else for breach of copyright. Sorry I don't recall the full details, but perhaps he had learned his "expertise" after he had, earlier in his career, foolishly awarded a musical composition prize to a child who had plagiarised a tune by Mozart.    D b f i r s   19:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details, but I wouldn't say that he was foolish for doing that - likely he wasn't aware that it was plagiarized. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Identifying picture on album cover
123.211.188.175 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Good Morning Hope all is well in your world! I noticed your description of Babaji that his picture was on St Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band Album cover by the Beatles On looking at the cover I couldn't find him - would you kindly let me know where his face is in amoungst them all? I see Swami Sri Yukteswar face at the back left hand side from my view sitting at the computer but can't locate Babaji Thank you so much for all your wonderful information With my very best wishes Cheryl Batchelor Maleny Australia123.211.188.175 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See here. He's on the second row, immediately to the left of Stan Laurel, immediately to the right of William S. Burroughs, and two to the right of Marilyn Monroe, near the middle of the picture.  His face is partially obscured by someone in the row in front of him raising their hand.  -- Jayron  32  23:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The colouring inclines me to believe it's Babaji's own hand obscuring his own face. The hand doesn't obviously belong to anyone else in the picture.   --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The hand seems to belong to Issy Bonn. Paul B (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And it is the hand that, during the famous "Paul is Dead" mania, was said to be an Eastern religious symbol of death when held over someone's head. (Which of course, it wasn't). - Nunh-huh 13:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)