Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 June 21

= June 21 =

On crime and punishment
There is a certain crime. A group of people want to enforce the criminal codes in the most harsh way possible, and considers the criminal as scum who does not deserve any consideration. And, if we can save steps and go directly to the death penalty, so much the better. The other group want to apply the penal codes in the most soft way possible, and considers the criminal a poor victim who needs understanding, rehabilitation and a second chance. And, if we can save steps and leave him free with just a warning, so much the better.

Which are the terms used to describe those approaches to the criminal law? Hawks and doves, or something else? Cambalachero (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps hardline & softline. Colloquially, the first is the hang 'em & flog 'em brigade. The second, bleeding hearts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A judge in the former category is sometimes called a hanging judge. Loraof (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the phrases "hard on crime" and "soft on crime" are used adjectivally. Loraof (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The latter seems like a caricature of the modernist theory of criminal justice: That the purpose of penal codes should be to incapacitate and rehabilitate criminals—that is, removing them from society to prevent them from doing more harm, and rehabilitating them so they can be reintegrated into society. The former doesn't seem like much of anything, but I think it's closer to a retributive theory of criminal justice—that the criminal gets his just deserts for the wrong he did. Again, your descriptions are honestly more caricatures of the two stances than actual descriptions—both have their merits and demerits, and both (along with the classical theory—a deterrence theory) are part of the modern criminal justice system in common law countries. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's an exaggeration, simply to make it easier to identify the perspectives. I'm not trying to discuss about criminal justice as a whole, just to know the terms I should use (and perhaps wikilink) in an article where some people are divided by this perspectives. Cambalachero (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the only terms I'm familiar with would be those associated with criminal justice: Retributive justice, Deterrence (legal), Incapacitation (penology), Rehabilitation (penology). I'm not familiar with any terms to refer to the people who prefer a particular approach over another. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Liberal and conservative. Pro-criminal and pro-victim.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, really not, not by any definitions of those terms (which, properly speaking, are not even opposed to one another, liberalism being a theory of how society should be organized, and conservatism being a theory of how fast it should change). --Trovatore (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that there are not liberal and conservative views on crime, punishment, and criminal justice? Really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per se, indeed there are not. --Trovatore (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "per se" mean, in this context? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no views on crime and punishment that are specific to liberalism and conservatism in and of themselves. --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are playing word games. There are liberal views on everything, including crime.  And their are conservative views on everything, including crime.  I can't understand how this is even up for debate.  I am using the "ordinary and everyday meaning" of the words "liberal" and "conservative".  You are using some nuanced meaning, perhaps.  Which, again, are merely word games.  There is no debate and no question that there are both liberal views and conservative views on crime, punishment, criminal justice, etc.  I would posit that most people reading this thread (and, in fact, most people in the world) are also using the "normal, plain, everyday" meaning of the words.  And not some eclectic nuanced definition that you are trying to inject into this discussion.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * See liberal and conservative.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are using the American-specific meanings, "center-left" and "center-right". Even according to those definitions, you are still wrong.  There are no views on crime and punishment that are specifically center-left or center-right. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am in the USA, so -- yes -- I am using American words with American meanings.  It is neither controversial nor debatable (nor is there any question) that there are "liberal" and "conservative" views on nearly all issues.  And those issues include crime, punishment, and the criminal justice system.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
 * You're just wrong. There are "conservatives" and "liberals" (American definition) scattered all over the map on crime/punishment issues.  Crime/punishment is simply not an aspect of the definition of American-style conservatism and liberalism. --Trovatore (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You should be aware that the peculiar American definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" do not apply to any nation outside of the U.S. The word "liberal" in particular (in the sense of "leftist" or "progressive") does NOT mean that outside of an American context, so when discussing matters with people outside of the U.S. (as you always are at Wikipedia) it is more helpful to avoid that word.  In particular, the political philosophy labeled as "liberalism" in the U.S. is usually refered to as social democracy or centre-left.  In any area of the English speaking world outside of the U.S., the term "liberal" usually means classical liberalism or neoliberalism which is actually a political philosophy more aligned with the U.S. Republican Party, which is termed "conservatism" in the U.S.  It is best to avoid those terms when speaking in mixed company, because when you say "liberal" to an Australian, you mean the Liberal Party of Australia which is a centre-right party more aligned to the politics of the U.S. Republicans, when you say it to a Canadian, you mean the Liberal Party of Canada, which is is centre party aligned between the two extremes of Canadian politics.  The terminology is so different among various English speakers it is best to avoid terms like "liberal" and "conservative" and instead use terms which are more universal and precise.  Just so you know, I am an American, and so am trying to explain this to you as a fellow countryman.  -- Jayron 32 04:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That may all be true. However, I explained above that I was indeed using the "American" version of those definitions.  That other editor is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  That is, trying to superimpose his definition onto my words, which -- apparently -- have some different definition (in some global sense).  Any human being in the USA understands that there are liberal and conservative views on basically everything.  And that "everything" includes crime.  This is not a controversial notion.  And it is not in question or subject to debate.  It simply "is".   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a controversial notion, because you are asserting that there exists a binary state of existance based on a specific, singular metric, that if you are liberal, that means you must believe X, or that if you believe X you must be liberal. That's not how life works, and when you start with such a plainly wrong and unreasonable precept, it makes everyone with half a brain want to ignore you because you're talking nonsense.  If you want to know why everyone is ignoring your question and attacking your precepts, that is why.  -- Jayron 32 23:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are putting words in my mouth. Where did I assert any of that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody would describe themselves as "pro-criminal". Instead, they would say that the person under arrest is as much of a victim as those he hurt, due to his upbringing, etc.  Instead they might use terms like "progressive" to describe their stance.  As far as acceptance by the general population, those who commit violent crimes are quite unlikely to get much sympathy, those who commit property crimes may or may not, and those who commit victimless crimes, like possession of drugs and prostitution, may get the most sympathy.  Unfortunately, being a member of a minority may also result in the application of retributive justice at a disproportional rate. StuRat (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course, nobody would describe themselves as "pro-criminal". But that's simply rhetoric and semantics.  People can be described as "pro-criminal" (i.e., "soft on crime", "bleeding heart liberals", etc.) even if they themselves don't use the term to self-describe.  In other words, the "pro-victim" crowd would call the "other side" as the "pro-criminal" crowd.  Even though the pro-criminals would not call themselves by that name.  Again, rhetoric and semantics. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose the "pro-criminal" people would call the "pro-victim" people a "lynch mob". -- BenRG (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that both the left and the right are prone to moral panics and associated tough-on-crime rhetoric. For example, there's a moral panic on the left right now about rape on U.S. college campuses. Critics, who are mostly on the right, are using terms like "lynch mob" and "star chamber" to describe Title IX investigations of accused rapists, and the critics are accused of being "pro-rape" or "rape apologists". -- BenRG (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that there is reasonable evidence that less retributive and more rehabilitation-oriented legal and penal systems lead to better outcomes, i.e. lower levels of crime. Wether one personally is convinced by that or not, some people certainly are, and thus support a so-called "soft on crime" stance from a purely utilitarian standpoint, without any sympathy for criminals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to what the others above have said, it's worth considering what you mean by "crime" and "criminal" as these tend to be quite related to debate in these areas. Since it sounds like this is originated from the US, are you only considering felonies or also misdemeanours? For example, if someone thinks that simple possession of marijuana or other drugs considered "soft" either shouldn't be illegal or shouldn't be a very minor offence does this make them pro-criminal? For that matter, if you are opposed to 10 year sentences for low level drug dealers, are you pro-criminal? Does this mean someone opposed to 10 year sentence for criminal copyright violation, minor fraud, obstruction of justice, perjury, making false statements is pro-criminal? (There was someone convicted for multiple of these, who's sentence significantly shorter than 10 years was commuted. Was this president soft on crime because of that?) If someone is opposed to day fines, hate crime legislation (including hate speech), strict gun control with strict penalties (if allowed by whatever constitution) are they pro-criminal? Is opposition to criminal libel, sedition, etc pro-criminal? For that matter, touching on what BenRG mentioned, if you believe that one of the criticised minor sentences for rape or sexual assault that got attention is justified based on the facts of the case, are you pro-criminal? Looking at a different area, and again touching on something BenRG said, besides sentences when the crime is proven there's also often dispute over the standards required to prove a crime. (And for that matter to justify a sentence.) Are you pro-criminal because you believe in these standards? Are you pro-criminal if you believe someone shouldn't have been found guilty because you think there were flaws in the case and the standards weren't met? But how does this work, plenty of people have different intepretations depending on the specific case (admitedly often based on misunderstanding or lack of info but even considered opinions can differ). Consider those high profile rape or sexual assault cases, or the Zimmerman case, or the number of police brutality cases, since the various people could have been found guilty given different standards, does this mean their supporters are "pro-criminal"?  I could go on but I've probably already lost all readers and none of this is sourced even if the pro-criminal bit wasn't either.  Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're dead right there, Nil Einne. I almost never read your posts, and I only saw the last sentence of this one by pure fluke.  It's not about lack of merit. See, I can't say whether or not your posts have merit; I assume they must do in most cases.  But their sheer forbidding monolithicity makes them unapproachable, so I never get to find out for sure.  TL:DR is the very least one could say about most of them.  But if you yourself now recognise that you lose your readers, there is hope.  Take a course in not saying something in 100 words where 5 would do the job perfectly.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just happened to see this and it relates to both my comment and StS's. Is this "pro-criminal" ? This largely affect remand prisoners who as said above may or may not be criminal ignoring the tagging. But anyway, is a move which from a simplistic analysis gives an alternative avenue for criminal behaviour and saves money be "pro-criminal"? Would it be better to spend more money on monitoring and prosecuting the criminal behaviour when it does arise, especially without evidence this would achieve better long term outcomes? (And frankly what indirect evidence we have suggests outcomes tend to be worse.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * One term for the harsh approach might be draconian. Lenient isn't quite the opposite but might help.  50.0.121.79 (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The FBI issued redacted transcripts of Omar Mateen's 9-1-1 phone calls from the Orlando Pulse Nightclub murders.
Recently, the FBI issued redacted transcripts of Omar Mateen's 9-1-1 phone calls from the Orlando Pulse Nightclub murders. After public outrage, the FBI issued the non-redacted transcripts. My question is a procedural one. What on earth does the FBI have to do with this? OK, I understand that they are investigating the case. But don't the 9-1-1 phone call recordings belong to the City of Orlando, or to the Orlando Police Department, or -- more broadly -- to the residents of Orlando? Does the FBI have the authority to simply "take" (confiscate) property that belongs to the City? I don't understand how this became a controversy. Can the FBI direct the City that they (the City) cannot reveal the 9-1-1 calls to the public? Surely, 9-1-1 calls are accessible through Freedom of Information laws. And Florida has the most liberal laws ("sunshine laws") in these regards. So, what's going on? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is some information here about legal arguments for and against release. -- BenRG (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I read that article you provided.  But it doesn't really answer my questions.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My impression from the article was that 911 records that are part of an "active investigation" are exempt from the usual laws about disclosure of public records. The papers argued that this wasn't an active investigation and the government argued that it was, more or less. -- BenRG (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In Pennsylvania, 911 calls are generally not under the FOIA/RTKL process, even if it's no longer an active investigation. You may get the transcript or the police log, but the actual call would most likely not be released, and the transcript would be given out as a favor, or severely redacted. The last time I requested a 911 call, I ended up just getting the police call log which showed response time and units responding. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Who is in charge of the security inside diplomatic missions of the Holy See?
The Swiss Guard, the Vatican Gendarmerie, or other? Apokrif (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Embassies to the Holy See usually do not maintain consular sections, what implies that another embassy or consulate (in Italy or elsewhere) provides the services. That is, they are not there in the Vatican, which is a teeny tiny country. --Llaanngg (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My questions is about diplomatic missions of the Holy See, not to the Holy See. In other words, I'm looking for the Holy See counterpart of Marine Security Guards or Diplomatic Security Service. Apokrif (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 * The Swiss Guard guards the pope and his residence. The Vatican Gendarmerie is responsible for the general security in the Vatican City and in the extraterritorial properties of the Holy See. | Italian source. --Llaanngg (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My question is about the security in diplomatic missions. (Btw, I'm not sure of the respective duties of the Gendarmerie and the Swiss Guard: Domenico Giani says that this man "is the chief bodyguard of Pope Benedict XVI and of Pope Francis", but he belongs to the Gendarmerie, not the Swiss Guard) Apokrif (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't they included in "extraterritorial properties"? —Tamfang (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Who says the Brexit is not binding?
What law or regulation says that the British government can legally ignore the Brexit result?--Llaanngg (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The government? Probably none. However, it's not unilateral - "The country seeking to leave the Union will be required to secure support from at least 72 percent of the continuing member states representing at least 65 percent of their population, as well as consent from the European Parliament." So the EU could prevent it from happening. --Golbez (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What? So, even if the Brexit wins, and the government obliges. I could be that Germany or France block it just because they can and have large populations? --Llaanngg (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Supposing the EU says "No" to the Brexit, how would they enforce keeping Britain in the EU? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * [e/c] :::Yep, could happen. So, the European Parliament seemed like a good idea at the time, huh? --107.15.152.93 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides a harshly worded declaration, what can they do? Possibly some trade sanctions (?) -- Anybody know (sourced, please)? 107.15.152.93 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a misinterpretation of Article 50. The other EU members (council and parliament) have to approve the terms of the agreement - but that does not prevent a member country leaving the EU (though doing so without an agreement in place would be far worse for that country than coming to an agreement). There is a good summary of the process here: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/ Wymspen (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * A newspaper factsheet says that if Brexit is approved there are certain procedures which need to be followed, which means that we will still be technically members of the EU till 2018 at the earliest.  Now, the treaty for the common currency (euro) has no protocol for exit, so if the other members do not throw a country out how could it leave? 86.168.123.89 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe by saying, "We are no longer in the EU. Goodbye!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Parliamentary sovereignty is why the referendum, as with any referendum in the UK, is generally said to be technically non binding. As has already been mentioned, the EU cannot stop the UK from leaving even under the treaty. If the UK and EU cannot come to an agreement, the UK will basically still withdraw 2 years after notification. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to believe what it says here (a reference in the Brexit article). My take on it: the referendum is not legally binding, politically any government would feel bound to accept it, there can be a delay before an exit is officially announced, UK can take a unilateral decision to leave, UK is in a weak position in trying to negotiate any future agreement with the rest of the EU. Thincat (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to note - either result of the referendum is not legally binding, there's no prejudice against brexit in this. And as Nil Einne said, *nothing* is binding on the UK parliament - though going against things that seem to be binding (especially a referendum, which is the direct will of the people) is likely to be political suicide. MChesterMC (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone know of a party of government in a modern state that ran a referendum and ignored the result? In 21st century Britain, they would be electoral toast for at least a couple of generations, if not forever. The British people have punished the Liberal Democrats very harshly for their involvement in the university tuition fees debate in this country and even their fiercest critics would probably agree that was a much lesser 'crime' than being a ruling party ignoring a referendum they called! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wee bit off topic, but that does happen at the local government level all the time. A small town I lived in as a boy had a ballot measure to increase taxes to build a new high school. It was for some amount that seemed obscene at the time, but would've had some kind of matching from another government agency. The measure failed, despite intense campaigning by the town. The matching opportunity then expired. Less than a year later it was announced they were building the new school anyway, without the match money. Life more or less went on as usual. Most governments are better about at least cloaking those kinds of things—a sudden and urgent necessity might pop up later to legitimize going against the wishes of the town. Anyway it's done, and it's done a lot. Hard to accomplish on a national scale because the opponents are usually well-heeled enough to ensure the credibility damage lasts beyond the next news cycle. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I understood it, the referendum is potentially not binding on the UK Parliament, but Cameron said he'd invoke article 50 right away if Brexit passed. Invoking article 50 starts a 2 year clock ticking during which the exiting country is supposed to work out terms agreeable with the EU.  That means there's a potential of no agreement when the clock runs out, meaning a non-graceful exit.  Something like that was considered a possibility for Greece last year, though it didn't happen.  What I'd like to know is what happens if Scotland splits from the UK and wants to be part of the EU?  Would that means it's considered to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK leaves?  Or would it mean the entire UK leaves and Scotland tries to get back in?  The latter might mean they'd be required to switch to the Euro, etc. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The UK and Denmark were given special optouts of the Eurozone. Of course no one can rule out the same being granted to Scotland but every other EU nations would need to agree to that and the general suggestion is it's unlikely they'll agree. In fact, it's not really clear that the UK will have any chance at any of their optouts and special terms in the future should they ever decide to rejoin. Of course the EU will need to accept Scotland in the first place, in the past this was a suggested problem especially in countries like Spain who have their own concerns about independence movements in their countries. The fact that this could be seen as a parts of non EU countries may break away so part of them can join the EU rather than part of a country in the EU breaking away and it joining the EU; is often suggested to be enough to allay those concerns but it will probably take it to be a real issue before there is definite clarity. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Family tree question: What is the relationship called between siblings of a married couple? (June 12)
Hi, all. This sentence in a magazine article on Lady Kitty Spencer caught my eye:

"She is also said to be close to her cousins, Princes William and Harry, and her cousin - in - law, the Duchess of Cambridge, though she won't talk about that."

I thought that "in - laws" were the people listed in the Table of Kindred and Affinity at the back of the Book of Common Prayer, an aide - memoire for the populace to know how far they could take their relationships:


 * Wifes Grandmother
 * Wifes fathers Sister
 * Wifes Mothers Sister
 * Wifes Mother
 * Wifes Daughter
 * Wifes Sister
 * Wifes Sons Daughter
 * Wifes Daughters Daughter
 * Wifes Brothers Daughter
 * Wifes Sisters Daughter

and correspondingly for women.

This is exactly how the table is printed. Inconsistencies in capitalisation and punctuation were not ironed out till later. The column heading is "A man shall not marry his ..." but for women it is "A woman shall not marry with her ..." (my emphasis). Why the distinction? 86.168.123.89 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So, you mean if A and B are a couple, what is the relationship between A's and B's sibling to each other? If that's what you mean, I'd say they are co-sibling-in-law. Llaanngg (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like they needed to proofread their copy better. I would either say "marry", or the more formal "join in marriage with".  As for who are considered in-laws, that would be anyone related to your spouse by blood or adoption.  They aren't all called in-laws, though, such as your spouse's children (not yours by blood), who are called step-children. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For the distinction between "marry" and "marry with", that's because marriage was something that a man did, and something that a woman had done to her. There are different verbs for it in Latin too, which is maybe where English got that from. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The term In-Law has a much wider meaning than that list of people you are not allowed to marry. It means either a person who is married to one of your blood relatives, or a blood relative of the person you are married to. If Prince William is Kitty's cousin, then William's wife if her cousin-in-law. Similarly, if Kitty marries, her husband would be William's cousin-in-law. In theory it can apply to even more distant relatives - though it isn't often used in that way. Wymspen (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cousin-in-law may be accurate... But the relationship is (I think) more commonly referred to as: "Cousin by marriage". Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In Portuguese "marry" (casar) is a reflexive verb: casar - se, "to get married", where the reflexive pronoun se means "each other".  When referencing the partner, the construction is casar com, "marry with".   From the point of view of the groom the construction is the same.
 * pt:Casamento says the word derives from casa, "house", so there seems to be some element of homemaking there, as with the American equivalent of a "housewife".
 * I don't know if the reflexive is a particularly Brazilian construction.  The article (which like all of pt:wp uses Brazilian orthography) contains the phrase uma pessoa deve se casar com seu primo, "a person must marry his cousin".   Primo is a generic masculine - pessoa is feminine irrespective of sex in the same way that Mädchen (German, "maiden") is always neuter.   The next sentence, however, contains the phrase as viúvas são obrigadas a casar com o irmão do seu marido, "the widows are obliged to marry their husband's brother".   Portuguese don't appear to use the reflexive. 86.177.172.210 (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mädchen: the suffix -chen is always neuter. Sleigh (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "siblings of a married couple" - wouldn't that just be brother/sister in law? Iapetus (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently not. I asked that question here: Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 June 12.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did fathers support the education of their daughters in ancient times?
Although the norm was that female education was neglected, some fathers supported their daughters' education anyway. What would motivate fathers to be progressive in women's education? 107.77.192.238 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It will really depend on more specifics of where/when/who. For one specific example, we have articles on both Theon_of_Alexandria and his daughter Hypatia. It seems they collaborated in some of their mathematical/philosophical endeavors. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Reich World War II Strategy
If the Third Reich had allocated more of its logistical resources, particularly the railway infrastructures under its control, to moving troops to the frontlines as opposed to deporting undesirables to concentration and extermination facilities, would this have given it an advantage militarily. Surely it would have made more tactical sense if the Einsatzgruppen units were put to work capturing Russia first, and then going on to purge the areas of undesirables after a successful conquest. Likewise, with the placing of people into ghetto's and subsequently deporting them, it doesn't seem to make much sense. Was there a sense that post-conquest, the final solution would have been unachievable and had to be conducted in secret? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrewnohome (talk • contribs) 20:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Muffled Pocketed  20:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See header: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". --107.15.152.93 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want some understanding into WHY the Third Reich behaved as it did, it behaved rationally insofar as it believed its actions were vital to ensuring its own success. We know it is bullshit today, and we knew it was always bullshit, but the Third Reich was in part founded on the belief in the Stab-in-the-back myth.  The deportation and extermination of Jewish people wasn't done (from their point of view) in spite of sound military strategy, it was part of their military strategy.  They believed that those actions were making it more likely (not less) that they'd win the war, because they believed the presence of the Jewish people in German society undermined the German military strength during World War I (especially leftist Jewish leaders during the German Revolution of 1918, notably the Spartacists like Rosa Luxemburg.)  The myth was no myth to the Third Reich leadership; they believed the German Military would have prevailed in 1918 if it were not for the Jewish peoples, which is why their removal from German society was not a random act of lunacy; it was part of a comprehensive plan for victory by fixing what they perceived was the weakness that caused the German Empire to fall in the last days of World War I.  Bugs supposition that it can't be explained is plainly wrong.  The Third Reich was incorrect in their racist precepts, but they did proceed rationally from those precepts.  Evil and wrong, yes, but we can't presume that evil is unexplainable, lest we have no way of preventing it in the future.  -- Jayron 32 21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You can't expect a lunatic's decision-making to be rational. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely though, even to him it would have made sense to mobilise troops to win your war first, and then commit atrocities when you're fairly likely to have a victory? I was just wondering if the desk could refer me to some scholarship on this debate, as I understand a number of historians have posited that if the Third Reich's logistical priorities were focused less on genocide, and more on troop and equipment mobilisation on the eastern front, the outcome of the war could have been more different? --Andrew 21:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would consider the "stab in the back" to be the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.  That brought America into the war, and when that happened Germany's fate was sealed.   Anyway, wasn't there an economic aspect to this?   The Germans meticulously looted the property and possessions of the J.   86.177.172.210 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Spelling peeve: There is no such place as "Pearl Harbour".  It's a proper name, and is properly spelled using the American spelling.  We wouldn't refer to "Sydney Harbor", except by mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pearl Harbour, New Zealand says "you're wrong". --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, I stand corrected. There is no such place as "Pearl Harbour" that was attacked by Japan, bringing the United States into World War II. --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pearl Harbor brought the US into war with Japan, not Germany.  It was several days later when Hitler decided to join in. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The question is predicated on the assumption that there were German troops or supplies that did not reach the front in a timely manner because trains were used to deport undesirables. This should be questioned. The key logistic challenges facing the Germans were lack of food, fuel and industrial capacity, not necessarily transport.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * on that issue... Remember that once a train has delivered troops and supplies to the front lines, it is empty... It must then go back to where more troops and supplies are located. It is inefficient to run empty trains... So, for the return journey, why not fill it with something other than troops and supplies for at least part of the return journey... Such as people you want to send to a concentration camp. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the camps are outside of Germany weren't they? A large number of scapegoats would have to be transported in the same direction as the troops and supplies. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, although the German railways had been somewhat underfunded pre-War, the main problem of logistics for Operation Barbarossa was not the capacity of the rail infrastructure, but the fact that once materiel had reached the railhead, it then had to be transported many hundreds of kilometres on unpaved roads. The German army started the campaign with too few motor vehicles, many of which had been requisitioned from France and other occupied territories. In Army Group Centre alone, there were 2,000 different models of vehicle, requiring a stock of more than a million types of spare part. Many of these vehicles were soon damaged beyond repair by the poor roads and the German motor industry was unable to replace them with anything like the required number - see Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East (p. 131). They could only be replaced by horse-drawn transport, some 625,000 horses were used during the campaign - see Failure Of Logistics In "Operation Barbarossa". So once materiel had been detrained, it only travelled at the speed of a horse, and probably a worn-out and underfed horse at that.
 * Shifting tack slightly, the Final Solution, as conceived at the Wannsee Conference in January 1942, was at least in part intended to relieve food shortages in Germany - the plan had originally been to deport the ghetto inhabitants to Siberia, but by that stage, this possibility looked less achievable, in the short term at any rate.
 * Further to your point about the Einsatzgruppen being better employed in front line duties - at the start of the campaign there were only 3,000 of them against a total invasion force of 3,800,000, so not really a significant proportion. In addition, any army has to deploy forces to protect its lines-of-communication and I suspect that their presence augmented that role. Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Filibuster Rule
I've been trying to find out the rule that allows a filibuster in the US Senate in the first place. The article on Filibuster says that "Senate rules permit a senator, or series of senators, to speak for as long as he or she wishes...". Standing Rule XXII covers cloture but I cannot find the rule that allows a filibuster to begin and to continue. Rule XIX (Debates) says "the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent...". But this applies to a single Senator, not "a series of senators".

I can't find the rules of what the filibustering Senator can or cannot do. Can he leave the chamber? Can he sit down? Do these apply even when another Senator is asking him a question? If not, how can he "transfer" his filibuster to another Senator so that he can take a bathroom break? Is it possible for multiple Senators to invoke a filibuster together so that any one of them can leave the chamber so long as another one is speaking?

We are told that the US Senate requires a supermajority of three-fifths because of the possibility of a filibuster and lack of cloture. Really what I'm asking is: is a filibuster limited to the size of a Senator's bladder? If there is some rule that makes indefinite filibustering legitimate, it should be included in the article. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For U.S. Senate procedure and precedents, the best source is usually Riddick's Senate Procedure, which is available via the link on this page. The rules for when a Senator keeps or loses his or her right to the floor (during a filibuster or at any other time) are covered in the "Debate" chapter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the actual practice of a filibuster is symbolic, and excepting a few rare cases, it's merely caused by the minority party announcing that they are filibustering a bill. No one stands on the floor and lectures for days anymore; (excepting the recent rare "filibuster in favor" done a few days ago for the gun legislation see Senator Murphy gun control filibuster) instead, they just announce that they would filibuster, and without 60 votes they bill never comes to floor.  They don't actually talk.  As Filibuster in the United States Senate explains "In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed."  -- Jayron 32 21:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I saw the word "cloture" I thought it was a misspelling of "closure", but obviously not.  What does the word mean?86.177.172.210 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In several other English-speaking countries, "closure" is the word for this concept. The variant "cloture" is only used in the US as far as I know. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As per wiktionary.org, cloture is the ending of debate so a vote can be taken. Loraof (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * According to our article, it was intoduced to the British House of Commons by William Gladstone, but we now say "guillotine" or more formally, it's an "Allocation of Time Order".  Alansplodge (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's one of the worst words in the entire English lexicon. Up there with 'smegma', 'palimpsest' and 'usufruct'.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for the first of the examples in your second sentence, because yuck, don't you mean the best words? Those look like candidates to add to my List of Words I Just Like Saying, along with synecdoche, Tucumcari, chupacabra. --Trovatore (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Point of cryptozoological usage – it's properly chupacabras (sing.), "sucker of goats", the -a ending is common but mistaken. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The best word in the English language is supposed to be "paradise", originally the garden round the palace of the king of Persia. 86.177.172.210 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean para dise - beyond dise? Dise must be pretty good still, paradise with some minor minuses. There's also Beyond Paradise, para para dise. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your Dise might be Solla Sollew, where you never have troubles, or at least, very few. --Trovatore (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since cloture requires only 60 of the 100 senators, it's quite unlikely that you'd be in a situation in which (1) the majority can't get the votes to end debate, but still (2) nobody's willing to take the first senator's place while he goes to the bathroom, eats, etc. Anyway, if I remember rightly, a vote to adjourn trumps everything else and requires only a simple majority, so unless the rest of the senators are willing to sit there, listening to the filibusterer indefinitely, they can always just vote to go home for the day unless they're trying to make it hard on the filibusterer.  In general, the point of a filibuster is to prevent something from happening, after all, so it doesn't matter whether you go on and on until everyone else is asleep or whether you convince them to adjourn or go onto another subject — whatever happens, you've succeeded in preventing the something from happening.  Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ... but no one can be recognized to make a motion to adjourn unless the senator who has the floor relinquishes it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's where the size of the senator's bladder comes into play. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They often wear catheters so they can pee in a bag and keep going . Wendy Davis used one recently, Strom Thurmond just peed into a bucket in 1957 while attempting to thwart the Civil Rights Act, according to that Mother Jones piece. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cause nothing says classy like peeing in a bucket in Congress to delay minor civil rights by 1 day.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)