Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 July 19

= July 19 =

Yggdrasil and the Tree of Life
Has there been any attempt to have the Elder Futhark Runes connect the nine worlds of Yggdrasil in a manner similar to how the Hebrew alphabet connects the Sephirot of the Tree of Life in Kabbalah? I know this would not be historical but I'm amazed I can't find any attempts to do this in the works of any of the modern occultists who have worked with runes (not that I've scoured every single page of every single book, which is why I'm here).

I've found this arrangement of 24 connections between the nine worlds (which works with most occultists lists of runes I've found), but it's paired with the 18 Armanen runes (which doesn't really work with 24 connections given). I'm seeing that design in some of the work of Stephen Flowers, but he doesn't appear to map what rune goes to what connection (at least in whatever I've got ahold of at the moment).

Thanks much, and don't worry about the source being WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And Thomas Karlsson gives something closer to a reliable source in Uthark (not that this is going to end up in an article). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And Thomas Karlsson gives something closer to a reliable source in Uthark (not that this is going to end up in an article). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

US police in different states
There's currently lots of US news coverage looking at the Republican National Convention, as can be expected. As this event is beyond normal for the Cleveland Division of Police, the city's depending on visiting officers from across the country. How does this work, jurisdictionally? Is some interstate compact required? Or do the visitors simply get permission from their superiors to leave for Ohio, and then the visitors get deputized by officials in Cleveland? Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * One possibility is that the out-of-jurisdiction police are hired as security guards. They could detain anyone until police officers from that jurisdiction arrived to formally arrest them.  This power to detain a criminal is actually something we all have, called a citizen's arrest. StuRat (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * A security guard can't detain and making a citizen's arrest opens you up to civil suits that the police are immune to. What might work is police from the same State, they usually have police powers across the state. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure a security guard can detain people. See shopkeeper's privilege. There the security guards are working on behalf of the shopkeepers. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I knew you would say that. :) That is the only time and it's expressly explicitly stated. If a private citizen performs a citizen's arrest, and it turns out to be invalid, he can be charged and he can be sued civilly. The same is not said for a cop. Qualified immunity. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Our false arrest says "it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest". StuRat (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you can sue, but there might not be criminal liability. Citizen's arrest is only if you are 100% sure of a crime. If not, you open yourself up to trouble. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how it works in Ohio, but in North Carolina, all sworn officers have limited statewide jurisdiction regardless of what agency they work for, be it the North Carolina Highway Patrol, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, various County Sheriff's offices, various municipal police departments, etc. see .  Agencies also have the power, similar to posse comitatus, to designate sworn officers from a different agency to work in a limited capacity with full arrest power outside their jurisdiction within the state of NC, see here, section 160A-288 which states

"'In accordance with rules, policies, or guidelines officially adopted by the governing body of the city or county by which he is employed, and subject to any conditions or restrictions included therein, the head of any law-enforcement agency may temporarily provide assistance to another agency in enforcing the laws of North Carolina if so requested in writing by the head of the requesting agency. The assistance may comprise allowing officers of the agency to work temporarily with officers of the requesting agency (including in an undercover capacity) and lending equipment and supplies. While working with the requesting agency under the authority of this section, an officer shall have the same jurisdiction, powers, rights, privileges and immunities (including those relating to the defense of civil actions and payment of judgments) as the officers of the requesting agency in addition to those he normally possesses.'"


 * I suspect many, if not most states, have similar statues. -- Jayron 32 16:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The out-of-state police officers were officially sworn in as Ohio police officers . The article doesn't say precisely which jurisdiction they have been sworn in under, or how the police arranged for their leave to Ohio. It is mentioned that though that only actual Cleveland police officers will be handling arrests. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Paul Schreber
What would be the correct description in English of the position held by Daniel Paul Schreber at the onset of his psychiatric illness? That page doesn't specify, and my source text gives "president of the High Court of Appeals for Dresden, Germany." My rudimentary German is insufficient for this task. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oberlandesgericht has an article. Here some proposed translations. And I would prefer "in Dresden", for the court was in Dresden and its district for appeals was Saxony. The German "Senatspräsident" might imply that he was one out of a couple of chairmen or presidents of senates (chambers), the only chairman or president would be named "Oberlandesgerichtspräsident", but that depends on the exact organization of that institution in 1893. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Executions of Tudor Queens
Anne Boleyn, as our article makes clear, was executed by a swordsman, the axe being deemed too common for a Queen.

Our article on Catherine Howard mentions she was beheaded with an axe, a claim backed up with a reference to a blog, although it in turn quotes what looks like a RS mentioning an axe.

Wikipedia's big of Lady Jane Grey, however, includes no citation about the method of execution, merely implying an axe, saying: "Referring to her head, she asked, "Will you take it off before I lay me down?", and the axeman answered: "No, madam."" The oblique mention of an "axeman" intrigued me, so I followed through to the [decent] source given at the end of the paragraph, which doesn't mention an axe once. Perversely, the executioner is referred to there as the "hangman".

So, was Lady Jane Grey beheaded with an axe or a sword? Any RS?

Also, who was the Tudor whose beheading became a bit shambolic, requiring many strokes of the axe? I think it preceded Anne Boleyn, and may have been one of the reasons why they brought in an expert for her.

Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Margaret Pole had a notoriously incompetent execution. The "Chronicle of Queen Jane" and Holinshead's description of Jane's execution include the use of a block, which would imply an axe - no block was used with a sword - but this may not be completely definitive. Tevildo (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. With a sword, would they just kneel with their head down? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the sword is sharp, heavy, fast, and well aimed, it should cut straight through. The Vikings, among others, used the exact same execution method (the Jómsvíkinga saga contains a quite well-known example of such an execution going wrong). The block is necessary because an axe is a wedge and puts up a lot more resistance. Smurrayinchester 09:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just loved that. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You might also be thinking of Thomas Cromwell, who was executed after Boleyn (but before Pole), who also suffered a horribly botched beheading and "so patiently suffered the stroke of the axe, by a ragged and Boocherly miser, whiche very ungoodly perfourmed the Office". Smurrayinchester 08:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Splendid stuff. Poor bloke, brilliantly vivid account! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There was also a bit of trouble in the beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots, where "[t]he first blow missed her neck and struck the back of her head. The second blow severed the neck, except for a small bit of sinew, which the executioner cut through using the axe." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He should practice more. They should hire professional livestock beheaders. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Spectator article "Anne Boleyn's last secret" states "Anne, alone among all victims of the Tudors, was to be beheaded with a sword and not the traditional axe" (bolding mine) and goes on to speculate why. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a great find, Clarity, thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

ribbon colors
Recently, in addition to the blue and yellow ribbon following the Dallas police shooting, I saw another ribbon following the Baton Rouge police shooting. The ribbon seemed like it was in different colors. What were they?2604:2000:7113:9D00:F093:4E6:4A4F:D280 (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hard to say, but a black ribbon is common for mourning. A yellow ribbon is symbolically for the missing, so that seems less appropriate.  The blue ribbon is typically a symbol of quality, but in this case was probably in reference to blue police uniforms. StuRat (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Thin Blue Line (emblem) may have some useful reading on this topic. -- Jayron 32 15:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Translating bishops
According to our article on the Cadaver Synod, the Bulgarians (probably a mistake for the Bulgars) asked to have the future Pope Formosus made their bishop, but Pope St. Nicholas I refused because fulfilling this request would necessarily require Formosus to leave his existing see, an action prohibited by a decision of the Second Council of Nicaea. Today, the Church still recognises the council's decisions, but it's quite common for the Pope to move a bishop from one see to another, and nobody complains that it's a violation of canon law. When did it become legal, or at least when did it become accepted, for a bishop to change sees with papal permission? I don't see Pope Nicholas objecting on legal grounds if it were considered appropriate for him to do, and the writing makes it sound as if Formusus was consulting him, rather than just sneaking off to Bulgar-land without attempting to get permission. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's actually the First Council of Nicaea that prohibited transfers - see canon 15 of Nicaea I here. Apparently it didn't quite stop, because the Second Council of Nicaea also said that bishops can't be transferred, or more specifically that they can't hold two sees at once (see here, also canon 15). Bishops were canonically considered to be sort of "married" to their see, so they couldn't leave just like a marriage couldn't be dissolved. This started to change in the 11th century with the Gregorian reforms and the transformation of the church into powerful, secular(-ish) monarchy. The previous century had a long stretch of incompetent and just plain terrible popes - a competent bishop couldn't be appointed from elsewhere, so the popes tended to be appointed from the local clergy in Rome. Pope Gregory VII changed that and decreed that he could appoint, depose, and transfer bishops if he so desired (in his Dictatus papae). Afterwards, as you mentioned, bishops were transferred all the time. I'm sure this must have been incorporated into the Decretum Gratiani and subsequent canon law collections, so it was no longer uncanonical, but I can't find a specific reference at the moment. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)