Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 June 5

= June 5 =

Ukraine
Whether the English Wikipedia community believes that after 1917, when the Ukrainian People's Republic proclaimed the country's independence 4 generalist and was soon captured by Bolshevik troops - in fact, there was the occupation of the territory of Ukraine? Then the whole period of 1917-1991 years (before the independence of Ukraine in 1991), you must call the Soviet occupation of Ukraine. Sorry for the bad english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manefon1989 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You could try posting your question at Talk:Ukraine, but a reply to another question there says: " Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource which records what mainstream secondary sources have to say on the matter, not my personal POV, your POV, or an other editor's POV". By the way, for "POV", please read Neutral point of view. It might be acceptable to add that Ukrainian nationalists viewed it as an occupation, provided that you can find a reliable source. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Functional representation
What is functional representation, and how do pressure groups contribute to it (in the UK)? I only found a couple of things, and I didn't properly understand them-I have a reasonable grasp of politics, but would appreciate a reasonably simplified answer. Thank you! 109.151.89.228 (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a section of text which uses the term? It could be being used as a formal terminology (in which case I've never heard of it, but someone else might) or just as two words of English stuck together to aid comprehension, in which case, it's fairly easy to explain. Context would tell us which of the two it is. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds a bit like functional constituency, which is an electoral system used in Hong Kong and Macau but the equivalent concept is (or was) also used elsewhere, including in medieval European cities - i.e. apportioning the franchise by economic function rather than population. You could say appointments to the House of Lords are to some extent based on "functional" representation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a homework question, and the revision notes here should help. Warofdreams talk 22:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Civil war (boards with holes in)
you see 4 of those boards (3 standing up, one lying in the ground) - What were they good for? How are they called? Dr. Phlox rocks! (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The parapet is constructed from earth-filled basket-work tubes called gabions and I strongly suspect (although not actually visible) that gaps called embrasures were left for artillery to fire through. These gaps were obviously a weak point which would allow blast and shrapnel to threaten the gun crews, so the boards would allow the muzzles of the guns to fire through the holes, while offering some protection to the crews behind. The correct term is a mantlet. Our article only describes medieval mantlets, but they were in widespread use in 19th century artillery fortifications in a variety of forms. See Dictionary of Fortification - Mantlet. It's a great photo by the way, I have added it to our "Gabion" article. Alansplodge (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This print shows a Civil War gun being fired through a mantlet made from rope attached to a frame; the ones in the Fort Stedman image are made of wood, but are obviously using balks of a considerable thickness to be able to absorb any impact. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the lying broken piece is from a very thin board, thus originally one side of the covering of an assembly. The remaining assemblies standing against, or rather, set near the wall are made of much thicker wooden blocks; the one to the left on the picture shows it lost one central block, that to the right as well, so probably repeatedly from the own blast of the cannon . --Askedonty (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Public bodies
What is the difference between an arms length government body such as Transport for London or NHS England and a government owned company such as Highways England or Network Rail which are also referred to as arms length public bodies but at the same time have limited company status. 2A02:C7D:B91D:8200:1182:5780:40C9:3504 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Public bodies conveniently have a company structure (i.e. shareholders, limited liability and corporate governance) but not - for - profit bodies can be "limited by guarantee", which means the subscribers agree to pay for their shares but no money actually changes hands.  This model would obviously be unsuitable for a profit - making company which needs to get money from its backers to set up in business. 151.224.132.45 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't Richard Nixon be brought up on state criminal charges to nullify his federal pardon?
I have a question about the pardon of Richard Nixon. Obviously, at that time, many people were very unhappy that Ford pardoned Nixon. They think that Nixon "got away with murder" only due to politics. And they think that the whole situation was a miscarriage of justice. I assume that the Democrats felt this more strongly than did the Republicans. So, this brings my question. Ford could only pardon Nixon for federal crimes. Couldn't someone have initiated some type of state charges (over which Ford's federal pardon would not be applicable)? I would think that some Democrats or even some advocacy groups would have pushed for this. No? Were there at least any efforts in this direction? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any efforts to prosecute Nixon at the state level, and I don't recall anyone specifically identifying a state as opposed to federal crime he might have committed. Googling reveals some newspaper speculation on this subject at the time of the pardon, but the idea seems to have fizzled. You are correct that the federal pardon would not have insulated Nexon from such a prosecution if state charges had been filed. FYI, although not directly response to your question about criminal prosecution, the New York courts did disbar Nixon as a lawyer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you think of any state criminal laws that Nixon might have broken? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, basically you need two things, a state law that he might have broken, and did the state have jurisdiction where the supposed crime was committed. Since the Watergate Hotel is in DC, neither Maryland nor Virginia would have jurisdiction. Nixon himself does seem to have kept his hands clean.  The only thing they could have got him on criminall would have criminal obstruction of justice or conspiracy or aiding and abetting. I have no idea how DC treats such crimes, but I suspect they would still be considered federal, not "DC" charges. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed your link. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The presidential pardon power encompasses the District of Columbia. For more background on what a federal pardon does and does not include, see here.
 * As I think about it, I believe Nixon was accused of tax evasion via underreporting income, so the state to which he paid state income taxes (which I believe though am not certain was New York during the relevant period) could have pursued that&mdash;but as indicated above, I don't believe they ever did. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting web site. Which brings up another question.  That web site states that you need a five-year waiting period.  However, Nixon was pardoned (more or less) immediately.  Certainly not five years later. How did Ford/Nixon "get around" that requirement?  Or was that specific provision not in place at the time, back in 1974?  Thanks.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That rule says it applies to applying for a pardon through the Department of Justice, which is how presidential pardons are usually screened. But they don't have to be, as the constitution gives the power to issue pardons directly to the president.  So even if the rule was in place, it didn't stop Ford from acting on his own. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nixon didn't get a pardon, Ford just did some handwaving, and no one stood up to him. He might as well have told Nixon ego te absolvo, say three Hail Mary's and sin no more. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Uh, so this doesn't exist? --71.110.8.102 (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Madame Medeis's Spiegeltent of the Intellectual Burlesque. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  12:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course that piece of paper exists, but you cannot be pardonned for a crime of which you've not been convicted. It's like issuing a divorce to Jackie Kennedy from Ronald Reagan.
 * Say they discovered a week after the "pardon" that Nixon had had someone killed to silence him. Do you seriously think the Supreme Court would hold that he had been pardonned of that murder had he been indicted?
 * That "document" has the same epistemological import as a prayer or magic spell, or deed to an unnamed star advertised for sale in the back of a magazine: all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 * Jack, I expect better from you. I know you understood my point, so I am not able to see why you thought it of value to resort to name calling.  Congratulations, in any casee. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus of lawyers who looked into the issue at the time was that the pardon was valid and within presidential authority. Whether it was wise (politically or otherwise) to give it, and to phrase it in such open-ended terms, if of course another question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Medeis, I expect better of you than to engage in, nay initiate, polemics about any subject, here on the reference desk where we explicitly ban debate. Your first respondent's reference is the thing of value here, and your pre- and post-commentary on it has no "epistemological import" whatsoever.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Jack, had you said you thought I was initiating an argument, rather than call me Madame Medeis, I might have taken your comment civilly. needs to give a source, because every description I have read of pardon requires a conviction first.  There's also amnesty and other things like immunity, but they are different beasts.  As it stands, Ford granted Jackie and Ron a divorce for any marriage they might have had, whether they did or not.  Of course Nixon didn't pay Ford $1,000,000 for the last-minute pardon, or steal the White House furniture, so there is that. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To: μηδείς. You stated: "every description I have read of pardon requires a conviction first".  I thought the same thing.  And I had asked that very same question here on the Reference Desk.  It was back on January 12, 2014.  See here: Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 12.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your personal feelings about the pardon are irrelevant. The historical facts: that Ford did grant it, and that Nixon was not further prosecuted specifically as a result of Ford's proclamations.  Your personal opinions about the "validity" as it were of Ford's actions are entirely unimportant, as you are neither a legal scholar nor anyone in any position to change the widely accepted facts in question: Ford did make the proclamation, and Nixon was not further prosecuted.  Everything you, as some rando on the Internet, have to say about the matter, is entirely pointless.  -- Jayron 32 04:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This whole conversation brings up another question. Was the pardon ever "challenged" at all, by anyone?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Other than Medeis and/or other people with no legal standing, unambiguously no. The only people who could have standing to raise the issue legally would have been representatives of the federal government, such as the office of the Attorney General of the United States and/or a specifically appointed special prosecutor.   Ford's pardon had the very direct and real effect of preventing any of that.  Also, since Nixon's prospective crimes were all committed within the District of Columbia, which at the time was under the direct administration of the federal government (the District of Columbia Home Rule Act post dated the Nixon pardon by a few months), there was literally no other "state" authority under which Nixon could have even been tried.  Ford's pardon, despite Medeis's considerable non-binding legal "opinion" on the matter, ended any practical means by which to hold Nixon accountable for whatever role he may have had in Watergate.  The only way it could have been challenged is by members of Ford's own administration, which wasn't going to happen.  -- Jayron 32 05:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Our article on pardons (Pardon) states: "A presidential pardon may be granted at any time...the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime" which is sourced to this paper (around pg 506 it discusses the Supreme Court's relevant interpretations of the pardon). On another note, a less discussed facet of this episode of history is that in his official response, Nixon publicly accepted the pardon, an act which, according to the terms of Ford's pardon was to be taken as an implicit confession or acknowledgment of guilt.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * But whether he "accepted" it or not, he was still pardoned. Right?  So why did he publicly "accept it" and admit guilt?  He could have kept his mouth shut (that is, he could have not officially accepted it).  And his non-acceptance would have had no legal effect, as he still would have retained the benefits of the pardon.  And he wouldn't have had to publicly admit any guilt.  So, what would be his reasoning/thinking in publicly admitting guilt, when he could have avoided doing so?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the same reason the pardon was given: To close the book on Watergate, as far as Nixon was concerned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I dunno. The pardon itself did indeed close the book.  Nothing further was needed by Nixon to close the book.  It was already closed.  I assume he'd rather have the book closed with his "innocence" still intact.  Or at least, the possibility that he was still innocent as a viable option.  I don't think he'd want/prefer an outright admission of guilt.  Who knows?  Maybe Ford offered him a pardon only on the condition that he accept it?  (Behind closed doors, I mean.)   Who knows? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Conventional wisdom at the time was that the pardon was in exchange for Nixon resigning. Also, to get the country's obsession with Watergate over with, and move on to other things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't the "conventional wisdom"; that was a conspiracy theory, and a pretty dumb one. If Ford had ambitions on the White House (there wasn't much pre-existing evidence of that), all he had to do was wait.  Nixon's impeachment and removal was a foregone conclusion. --Trovatore (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ford wasn't necessarily that interested in being president. Nixon resigned as a face-saving measure, and whether he and Ford talked about it ahead of time or not, the effect was the same: Nixon was out, and Watergate was over. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed Ford's pardon is based first on an implicit acknowledgement of the crime. And the memo also is making clear how the traditional judiciary-and-opinion tandem is affected by the electronics - that's what fundamentally has been changing with the media. The need of taking the media into account is explicitly stated in point 5 of the Jaworski memorandum. This must have given hold a-contrario to the perception that the question of Nixon's responsibility was only secondary, or even that it would not have been satisfactorily determined by the process of prosecution (as Ford proves the 'for indictment' Jaworski memo point 5 rather specious). --Askedonty (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of the above criticisms have understood my point. I neither describe the pardon as good or bad.  That would be a category mistake.  There was no pardon, because a pardon exists in relation to a specific conviction.  Just as there's no divorce if there's no marriage, there's no pardon if there's no conviction.  One can draw up a paper that says a pardon has been granted, just as one can pass a law which is declared unconstitutional, or enter into a contract which is found null and void.  I read Williams rather voluminous source from pp 505 - 510, and see nothing of obvious relevance, or specific relevance to Nixon.  Quoting our own article is verboten.  WP is not a reliable source. μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we understand your point. Which is: how can you have something be pardoned if that something never existed?  Or, in other words, how can you pardon someone who has never been tried/convicted?  Yes, we get that.  And, indeed, it seems counter-intuitive.  This was brought up in this Discussion as well as some of the other Reference Desk discussions that were linked above.  The "problem" is, however, that the U. S. Supreme Court has spoken on this issue.  And they gave the counter-intuitive result: there can be a pardon given/granted, even in the absence of a trial/conviction/guilt.  And, like it or not, they (the U. S. Supreme Court) pretty much have the last word on this matter.  So, the question becomes: why are you claiming that "There was no pardon, because a pardon exists in relation to a specific conviction", when the U. S. Supreme Court stated the exact opposite?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't go there, Joseph. We have the facts.  The rest is, or ought to be, silence. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think the novelty of the Ford pardon was so much that there was no conviction, as it was that there were not even any specific facts mentioned. It would be strange if someone holding pardon authority had to wait for the end of the trial before exercising it.  What if the trial is not expected to be over before the one with authority leaves office?  --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition to Nixon, there are many other examples of preemptive pardons given before an individual was convicted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt,, but would really need some good reliable and verifiable sorces to concede the point. Until then, the plain meaning is plain, and magical incantations are magical. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to provide additional information when I gave a response on this page and there's a follow-up question, but there might be more polite ways to make the request. That being said, I'd refer you to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Garland, full text here, in which the Court wrote: "The Constitution provides that the President 'shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.' The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment." Also, "[I]f granted before conviction, [a pardon] prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching...." Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's quite odd that a pardon can be given before any legal proceedings begin. That leaves it very open-ended.  And the person receiving the pardon is essentially "absolved" of anything and everything.  (As long as it's federal and depending on how the pardon is worded.)  Still, that seems odd.  As another editor above pointed out, what if it was later discovered that the person receiving the pardon committed some other crime that the pardon itself was not "intended" to cover?  I think someone above gave an example of Nixon having committed murder.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If there were compelling evidence of such an extraordinarily horrifying crime, it's reasonable to suppose that the pardon would have been rescinded. Or, depending on the circumstances, it could have been tried at the state level. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, that's another Pandora's Box. Are you sure that a pardon can be taken back?  That doesn't seem to make any sense at all.  For example, they let a person out of jail.  He goes about living his life.  And then someone (the President or whoever) says, "Oh, sorry, changed my mind.  I am rescinding the pardon."  I can't imagine that that's "legal"?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)