Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 March 27

= March 27 =

Japanese flag ratio
Flag of the Philippines says:

The Japanese flag as it appeared until 1999: a red sun-disc, shifted 1% left of centre, on a white field.

Flag of Japan says:

The law decreed the disc to be in the center, but it was usually placed one-hundredth (1⁄100) towards the hoist.

Which one is correct? Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Before 1999, both. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that "1% left of centre" is the same as "one-hundredth (1⁄100) towards the hoist", since the hoist (the side of the flag attached to the pole) is conventionally shown on the viewer's left. Alansplodge (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm having problem understanding the sentence "The law decreed the disc to be in the center, but it was usually placed one-hundredth (1⁄100) towards the hoist."
 * Does it mean:
 * 1. The law says dead center. The law also says shifted 1⁄100 towards the hoist is fine.
 * 2. The law says dead center. In practice though, it's usually shifted 1⁄100 towards the hoist, against what the law says.
 * I'm not sure which interpretation is correct. Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The second interpretation is correct.-- MarshalN20 T al k 04:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then isn't the quoted part of the Flag of the Philippines article wrong? It should probably say something like: "The Japanese flag as it appeared until 1999: a red sun-disc centered on a white field. Though in practice the sun-disc is erroneously shifted 1% left of center in some flags." Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, "Appeared" does not mean "as defined in law". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. My point is that Flag of the Philippines should probably be more about Flag of the Philippines as defined as law than The Appearance of the Flag of the Philippines. Of course the article should cover both de jure and de facto facts about the flag, but the de jure information should probably be mentioned first and foremost.Johnson&#38;Johnson&#38;Son (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This part about the dot moving 1/100 also intrigued me. What would be the reasons that -- in practicality -- they would choose to shift the dot a little?  (1) It would seem to me easier to just place it dead center, no?  (2) Also, it's such a negligible amount that I assume no one notices the difference.  So why bother?  Plus, (3) you are actually breaking the law.  And who knows what affect that may have.  What's the point?  Why risk breaking the law?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's entirely in accordance with traditional Japanese aesthetics though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what that means. I know nothing about Japanese aesthetics.  Can you clarify what you mean?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exact symmetry being the essence of beauty is very much a Western notion, from the time of Vitruvius. Much Japanese proportion is based on deliberate asymmetry and the choice instead of a pleasing ratio between differing parts. There is also an acceptance of imperfection (see wabi sabi) and an enjoyment of how it introduces interest into dull Western symmetries and uniformities. So even when "the circle goes in the middle", the Japanese approach would still be to shift it slightly. It doesn't even need to be visible, or to be recognised by the viewer: in some cases it's enough that the maker knows they're making something of more sophistication than barbarian symmetry. This isn't the Islamic notion that only God makes perfection, but rather an idea that simple perfection is too simple and thus uninteresting. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. OK, that all makes sense.  Why, then, would the law itself dictate symmetry?  Why didn't they just add in the "1/100 deviation" into the law?  That seems odd, given what you say about how important asymmetry is to the culture.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the 1860s, Japan has been a tension between tradition and modernisation (i.e. Westernisation). There are many examples from the pre-WWII Shōwa era, a time of Japanese nationalist resurgence, where contradictions manifest themselves. This is very often the case around military matters, where the military were simultaneously espousing nationalist virtues and also seeking the efficiencies of Western modernism: so there were problems needing shorter dirks, rather than an officer's sword, in order to fit into modern aircraft cockpits, or (almost ludicrously) the requirement that the bridge of a first-line warship would be commanded in Bungo, despite the shortage of non-noble junior officers who were fluent in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't find a source too easily but the famous Itsukushima Shrine that's on the cover of many tourist guides of Japan was built with one minor mistake to avoid offending the gods or being as good as them or something like that. It's perfect except for one piece of wood under the roof I think that breaks the symmetry. Possibly that's why people do that to the flag. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than some orientalist mumbo-jumbo, I think it's far more likely that the sun disc is shifted because otherwise an optical illusion would result from the way the hoist end is attached to the flag pole that would make the disc look like it's off-centre, given the white background. Similar to the adjustment to the proportions of the tricolour in France. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do old people get judged faster?
For example, [Redacted for BLP reasons]. Is his case processed faster, just in case he is indeed considered guilty but kicks the bucket before they can put him in prison?--Scicurious (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed the name of your example; it's not necessary for your point, and there are no criminal charges in that case anyway. But basically, no, there is no mechanism of which I am aware in US law by which any trial would be sped up on such grounds, and in a civil suit, the estate can be found liable regardless of whether the defendant is a decedent.  You might be able to get a judge to speed up gathering exculpatory evidence, but it is the defendant, not the plaintiff who has the inherent right to a speedy trial. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on WP:BLP, but I don't see how mentioning the name of the individual in question violates it, in this particular case. We have an article on the individual here on wikipedia, the allegations have received widespread publicity in reliable sources (and are referred to in our wikipedia article on the individual), and the OP is not making any defamatory imputations. He does not suggest the person is guilty, merely "just in case he is indeed considered guilty". How does this violate BLP? Eliyohub (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer the OP's question, though, in a criminal case, if an accused person in that situation is out on bail, he or she is obviously going to have a huge incentive to delay the proceedings for as long as possible, to extract maximum mileage from the relatively "good" years they have left - and all the more so if a guilty verdict means they'll likely die in prison, given their age. Whilst judges have said that the concept that "justice delayed is justice denied" does not only apply to defendants (prosecutors, too, are entitled to timeliness, although this does not rise to a constitutional right), in practice, I don't see them speeding up cases simply to stop a person "escaping" punishment through dying a natural death. But like any criminal case, regardless of the age of the accused, the judge will insist that there be no deliberate unwarranted stalling by the accused or their lawyers if he or she (the judge, that is) can help it. Eliyohub (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In civil cases, I could certainly imagine a judge possibly giving such a case a "priority listing", so that the defendant can give sworn evidence before they die or start losing their memory. True, the plaintiff could sue the estate regardless even if the defendant was dead. However, the estate would be unfairly disadvantaged in attempting to defend any such claim without the defendant (the key figure) being able to give sworn evidence, and be cross-examined. So in the case of the man you mentioned (who's in his late 70's), for example, the judge may well try to hold a hearing of the defendant's evidence (the bit where he personally testifies and gets cross-examined) ASAP, in fairness to him. In some jurisdictions, such evidence and cross-examination can be given in court and officially video recorded, so it could be replayed to the trial judge or jury in the later event of a trial (e.g. in the interim, the defendant's memory or mental state has deteriorated due to dementia, or he is no longer alive). The rest of the trial itself need not be held at the time, and may have to wait for its' turn in the court system. The wheels of justice can grind slowly, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial only applies to criminal matters, not civil ones, I think. Eliyohub (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer.


 * Indeed, if my question was not appropriate, we should review or remove the Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations article. It is also not true that he was not charged, contrary to what μηδείς says. Scicurious (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you missed the part where it says, "On December 30, 2015, three Class II Felony charges of aggravated indecent assault were filed against Cosby in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those charges were stayed by a state superior court until an appeal is heard. If the question is regarding that defendant specifically, such a discussion belongs on the relevant talk page, if anywhere.  We simply don't need to be speculating on whether someone might be convicted before they die, or charged with a federal crime before they are nominated, or so on and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * My understanding is the same as Eliyohub's: There is normally no special effort to speed up a trial just because the defendant is aged.  After all, aged defendants are not all that unusual anyway, especially in civil cases.  John M Baker (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of correcting what I assume to be a spelling mistake on your part. What about my question of fairness to the aged defendant, in civil cases, where any delay may allow them to develop dementia or die, and thus be unable to testify in their own defense? Am I correct in saying that there may be legal mechanisms for pre-trial hearings (in court, with a judge, with cross-examination) of the defendant's testimony? Or would the judge agree to speed up the trial to avoid this happening (the defendant dying or losing his memory)? The guardian (in the case of dementia) or estate (in the case of death) would be severely disadvantaged in contesting the lawsuit without this testimony, so doesn't fairness dictate that the judge take this into consideration? Eliyohub (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. I suppose that this could happen in the judge's discretion, but it is not a normal part of judicial procedure when there is an elderly or infirm party.  Sometimes a prosecutor takes steps to secure the sworn testimony of a key witness in a criminal case, but this does not require the involvement of the judge.  John M Baker (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)