Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 November 10

= November 10 =

two vases of flowers
At 27 and 28 in this 30 second advertisement a vase of flowers is replaced by a different vase of flowers. This must represent "personalization" as that is what the advertisement is about, in my opinion, but correct me if I am wrong about that. What puzzles me is the difference between the two vases of flowers. Or maybe that is the point—that symbolically there is no difference. You may need to stop and enlarge the video to see what is happening. A large bushy bunch of flowers is being replaced by a floral arrangement consisting of what looks to me like individual flowers. A floral aficionado may recognize the species and significance. I am sure the creative types in advertising have given some thought to these choices. Can anybody reveal the likely thinking behind the vase of flowers originally there and the vase of flowers replacing it? I have a hunch that this switch occurring as it does at the end of the advertisement lends additional weight to the change in floral arrangements. Thanks for any help in deciphering this. Bus stop (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What evidence do you have that it is supposed to have any meaning at all? -- Jayron 32 00:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It may or may not have meaning. Any product of human creativity is of debatable and revisable significance. In this case the aim is to sell a product. The advertisement is designed to be persuasive. On that working assumption I think one can look for meaning. A perfectly plausible conclusion is that no significance applies to the two floral arrangements and that the only significance to those brief moments of the advertisement is that one's preferences are being fulfilled. But on the other hand individual viewers of the clearly creative project can form opinions as to possible intended symbolism involved. If you find this sort of question unfit for the Reference desk I can understand that. It is a weird question. I just thought I'd be interested in what other people thought. This is not any kind of a hoax. Whenever I see that advertisement I wonder about the switched vase of flowers, and what the creators of the advertisement had in mind. Bus stop (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You have the idea right, that they are showing they are willing to personalize things for you to the smallest detail. What the difference is between the vases is not important to the point, their willingness to personalize to that detail level is.  In the case of software, maybe some people like a dash in front of negative numbers, others want them in red, and other want parens around them.  It's not IBM's business to force one solution over another.  StuRat (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you agree that they are "showing they are willing to personalize things for you to the smallest detail." Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Or maybe she's replacing yesterday's flowers because a new guest is taking the room. —Tamfang (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So, it didn't make any difference which vase was taken off the table and which vase was put on the table? Should we assume that no thought was given to which vase was taken off the table and which vase was put on the table in its place? Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If we knew nothing else, then this might make sense, but since we see 3 slightly different versions of the same person throughout the ad, it's clear that the theme is customizing the experience to fit each. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It was rather odd of you to hat the topic to show you have your answer, so I unhatted it and added a resolved tag, instead. StuRat (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You say "it's clear that the theme is customizing the experience to fit each." This is a given. I agree completely with you about that. And others have already made that point. My question concerns a choice. Floral arrangement A can be taken away, only to be replaced by floral arrangement B. Or, floral arrangement B could be taken away only to be replaced by floral arrangement A. My question concerns the significance of one change vis-a-vis the significance of the other change. One can say that there is no difference. Or, one can say that there is a difference. Either way, accounting must be taken of the specifics of the two floral arrangements. They are different floral arrangements. One can say that their differences are inconsequential. Or one can say that the makers of the advertisement considered one "switch" advantageous to their cause. They are promoting a product. In my opinion all choices in such a video advertisement are deliberate. They can be mistaken. A choice can fail to optimally exploit the opportunity to sell a product. But mistakes can't be construed as not trying. Therefore my question is "What were they thinking?" Why did they choose one floral arrangement over another? The answer, if one exists, can only be found in the floral arrangements themselves. What does one floral arrangement convey and what does the other floral arrangement convey? Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As an aside, your question reminds me of my English literature teachers penchant for abstracting symbolism from work in which they occasionally seemed to go too far in their analysis because they projected their own worldview and biases into "possible" symbols that may have never been intended. In a poetry class, I wrote a rather straightforward, but vague poem, and I was surprised by all the different interpretations, so unless I want that result I strive to be more specific now and more careful with my references when writing even if it can get wordy or more repetitious than I like. Getting back to the question, political context sometimes matters and I've seen a lot of suggestive political promotions in ads. So building on that, I'll note that it is white flowers that are replacing a bluish purple bouquet (on my screen at least) and that these colors have been important to Hillary's attire because of their use within the woman's suffrage movement.  so it might be a salute to the movement (not that it is). -Modocc (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You say "I strive to be more specific now" but in an advertisement like this one a different tack is taken. There is much to be read between the lines. By the way Cambridge Dictionary defines reading between the lines as finding "meanings that are intended but that are not directly expressed". I think the advertisement is carefully crafted. Thank you for noting that "it is white flowers that are replacing a bluish purple bouquet". I think this is the sort of observation that could matter. Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggested that the customer expressed a preference for one over the other, so it's not their concern as to why the customer prefers that one, just to do as the customer asks. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Do customers always explicitly articulate preferences? An algorithm makes assumptions and takes guesses. The advertisement is talking about "cognitive analytics". I don't know what that is. Truth be told I don't know what an algorithm is. But the advertisement intends to suggest that IBM's "Watson" will make choices that you will like. You are not specifying what kind of flowers you want, but computing power and computing finesse will make good guesses as to what type of flowers you would like. If they want to sell a product, they want to show instances in which you, the potential customer, unconsciously agree with the choices being depicted. In this particular advertisement there is a point near the end at which a relatively minor choice is made. I think it is a safe assumption that those who crafted the advertisement want the viewer to unconsciously approve of the choice that is made between one vase of flowers and another. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What was the first country ?
what is the first country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.58.7.56 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2016‎
 * This is the language desk. If it's a history question then it belongs at Reference desk/Humanities. Possible answers include Uruk, Sumer and Ancient Egypt but it depends on the meaning of country and there may be other candidates we know less about. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A country is generally taken to mean a sovereign state, i.e. a people and living on a defined territory under the authority of a defined government. State (polity) discusses the history of state societies.  The answer is probably we don't know, as there were state societies that developed over several locations at roughly the same time.  While those of Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Egyptget a lot of press, there were several Bronze Age civilizations which could all lay claim to having early "countries": including the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Minoan civilization on Crete.  There may or may not have been state societies in the New World contemporaneous to these, the standard chronology is that the earliest state societies, such as the Olmec in Mexico, arrived a thousand years or so later in the New World than the Old, but there may more research to be done in this area.  -- Jayron 32 23:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See Lists of sovereign states by year for our index article, and List of sovereign states by date of formation for a more detailed treatment. Jericho has been continuously inhabited since about 10000 BC - San Marino was officially founded in 301 AD and has the oldest written constitution (1600 AD).  But, as others have pointed out, the definition of a "country" is not simple. Tevildo (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Aborigines had a flourishing society, as evidenced by the amazing cave paintings at Bunga Bunga, in what is now Western Australia, in 20,000 BC. 92.8.63.27 (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Has someone who has never held public office been nominated president before?
Regardless of opinion, seems an extreme anomaly that someone with 0 experience in politics was elected to the highest office. 66.87.145.208 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Noting the difference between holding public office and having experience in politics (many public offices are appointed, not elected). Short answer: Taylor, Grant, Taft, Hoover, Eisenhower. Long answer: Granted, all five were either military heroes or former cabinet secretaries, so Trump would be a precedent in that respect. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  04:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * George Washington? And like Trump, he had fake hair. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * True, he could have been in British politics before America existed, but wasn't. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Washington was heavily into politics before America existed. He served in the Virginia House of Burgesses for 15 years before independence.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but it would be nice to resolve the discrepancy between that and George Washington, which states 7 years for Frederick County with no mention of Fairfax County. Also, as I read it, that source appears to self-contradict, first saying fifteen years, then implying 17 years (61 - 58) + (75 - 61). Maybe they are using different math. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Either way, it would seem Washington does not fit the premise. So Trump is unique. (To put it politely.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dwight Eisenhower, on the other hand, was really non-political before he ran for president. His first career was the army, and then he was a university president. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to think that the top levels of the military were completely devoid of politics, but they are not. High-level generals need to know how to communicate and with negotiate with the President, Secretary of Defense (War Secretary then), Congress, and other military and political leaders in the US, it's allies, and even it's enemies (say when negotiating a cease-fire). StuRat (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I went through the list of all elections noted at United States presidential election for major nominees, and checked through for any major candidate who never served as an elected or appointed position in local, state, or national government (excepting military service). Here's the list I came up with:
 * Winfield Scott was a contender for the Whig nomination in 1840, and was the party's nominee in 1852, he was a General but never held government office, he was briefly Military Governor of Mexico City during the Mexican-American War.
 * George B. McClellan was the Democratic Party nominee for President in 1864. He was a General.  He had never held office till that point, but was later Governor of New Jersey.
 * Ulysses S. Grant was, like McClellan, a Civil War general. He had never held office before running for President.  He appears to be the first political neophyte to have won the job, serving 2 terms from 1869-1877.
 * Winfield Scott Hancock was Democratic Party nominee in 1880, and former Civil War officer. He never held office.
 * Dwight D. Eisenhower had never held government office prior to being elected President in 1952, he served 2 terms. Like Winfield Scott, he was a decorated and well-respected General, and was (in that role) briefly a Military Governor of conquered territory.
 * Ross Perot had never held office, and was never a "major party" nominee, but he founded a significant third party (the Reform Party of the United States of America) and had decent showings in 2 presidential elections, notably in 1992 when he took one out of every six votes.
 * Ralph Nader likewise never held office, but was a significant third party nominee several times, notably in 2000 when his run as a member of the Green Party of the United States was cited as a key factor in dividing the progressive/left vote and possibly throwing the election to GW Bush.
 * Donald Trump, the current President Elect, has never held office.
 * That's the list I can come up with. -- Jayron 32 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Zachary Taylor belongs on it too.John Z (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that the OP said nominated in the heading and elected in the first sentence. No worries, now they have respectable answers to both questions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unrelated, but the problem of third-party candidates like Perot and Nader being "spoilers" only arises due to the Plurality voting system. In an Instant-runoff voting system, the problem does not arise. But I'm biased towards the latter, being an Australian. In the U.S., I suspect the Republicans would fight it tooth and nail, as it would open the system to third parties, and likely give people like Gary Johnson a real chunk of the vote - at least enough to cross the 15% threshold to participate in presidential debates in an election like the one we just had. Maine will be an interesting test case on attitudes towards such a system. Eliyohub (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Politics is about the only highly remunerated job that one does not need any formal qualifications nor proven experience for. So I don't see the point of the question.--Aspro (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Questions do not require a point, especially at RD. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * At the RD, we don't seek the reasons why people ask questions. We simply look for sources of information to help them find their answers.  The OP wanted to know about Presidential Candidates without political experience.  That's a question for which sources are likely to exist to help them in their research.  Perfectly legitimate.  -- Jayron 32 13:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Experience-wise At that level one has grunts doing taking care of of the legal, tech and economic details for one. For instance, Hillary can blame the email fiasco on her grunts for not doing a proper job and advising her in a professional manner for which they were employed – she can (like butter would not melt in her mouth) declare it was not he fault and  I should not be personaly sanctioned in any way. Donald has highly paid tax advisers and likewise he leaves it up-to them to sort out any tax issues they may have go him into. That is the American way - where money talks. And the more money one has the greater the benefits of doubt come down on your side. After all. Without the rich people of America how could all that wealth trick down to the poor,  illegal immigrants, sick and undeserving that have built America by their own sweat and toil?--Aspro (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with the OP's question(s), which were not an open invitation to forum-like discussion of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note the Ronald Reagan, who did have experience as Governor of California, didn't seem to be very competent, possibly as an early effect of Alzheimer's. That is, when asked basic Q's about what portion of Congress it takes to override a Presidential veto, etc., he didn't know the answers.  However, he was able to appoint competent staff and be successful, by many measures, so it is possible for somebody knowing as little as Trump to succeed. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between not knowing both chambers have to override and this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2008 vice-presidential candidate and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin apparently thought that the federal government had a "law department" that could decide to stop investigations. I don't remember ever hearing that she had Alzheimers.  In her defense, Alaska's state government apparently does have such a department.  The federal counterpart (it occurs to me just now) would be the Department of Justice, which e.g. decided this year not to pursue the emailgate investigation. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 2008 vice-presidential candidate and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin apparently thought that the federal government had a "law department" that could decide to stop investigations. I don't remember ever hearing that she had Alzheimers.  In her defense, Alaska's state government apparently does have such a department.  The federal counterpart (it occurs to me just now) would be the Department of Justice, which e.g. decided this year not to pursue the emailgate investigation. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Waiving one's right to Secret Service protection
My previous question re Secret Service protection brought about one answer as to the bored agent guarding Bess Truman as she was in a nursing home (which at that point she never left) in her 90s. Wouldn't she feel that he was an unnecessary pain and a waste of taxpayers' money? She was in her 90s, would die soon anyways, and I think few would dream of killing her then.

My question is, when it comes to Witness protection programs, it's not uncommon for an eligible witness to decline to join the program, or, once in the program, to voluntarily leave. According to police, the reasons fall into one of three:

1. The drastic effect on one's life and lifestyle involved in joining the program and totally abandoning their life up to that point (family, friends, home, job, everything). Some witnesses prefer to accept the risk in order to have a life than protect their life. Their family, friends, job, and community outweigh any fears for their lives. "Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once". Some witnesses at risk do take this attitude, and behave exactly like Julius Ceasar (or rather, Shakespeare's portrayal of him) in the face of threats to their lives. The outcomes are mixed, but I can definitely see the appeal of refusing to allow fear to rule and ruin one's life.

2. Witnesses who are themselves criminals (as many in the program are) may have too much dislike and distrust of the police and law enforcement to join the program.

3. Some criminal-witnesses are simply "gung-ho", and confident they "can look after themselves".

The police may be unhappy about a witness refusing protection, but very clearly, it is the witnesses' right to do so, is it not?

Excuse my ramble above. My main question is about Secret-Service protection. It's not quite as draining as witness protection, from what I gather, but it's a major pain and intrusion. Particularly when it comes to individuals whom intelligence assessments rate as being at "low risk" (and I would think family members of those long out of politics, such as the aforementioned Bess Truman, would often fall into this category, but I stand to be corrected). Is it heard of for an eligible individual in this situation to formally request that his or her protective detail be either scaled back or totally withdrawn?

Kate Middleton declined bodyguards whist she was dating (but before she married) the heir to the throne (though she did accept a radio to make urgent contact with police if necessary), at least whilst she wasn't with him. At times when two were physically together, clearly she had to put up with Prince William's bodyguards. But when she was on her own, she pleaded "just let me be". And the security service was willing to indulge her, or maybe they had no choice. Or maybe the threat to her was not deemed particularly high (aside from paparazzi stalkers, which are not always as physically harmless as they appear - note the initial blaming of them in the Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. And infatuated "Celebrity Stalkers" may be another element of risk with such individuals - some of those are definitely NOT harmless). NOW that she's officially a princess, I don't know if she'd be allowed that luxury. (Would she, if she insisted? Bodyguards can be SO intrusive). But I do get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that she prefers her security detail to blend into the furniture as much as possible.

Anyways, back to my question: does a person entitled to Secret Service protection have the right to request / demand that the protection be withdrawn - particularly if they're deemed to be at low risk? And are any such individuals known to have actually made such a request?

And as a second question, why was Kate Middleton's request NOT to be assigned bodyguards approved? Did the security services ever comment? Did any experts speculate? Or was she simply exercising a legal right, which gave the security services no choice in the matter, regardless of how they felt about the situation? Eliyohub (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see how bodyguards could be imposed on anyone. An undesirable bodyguard would be more like a stalker than anything else.


 * The question is a bit WP:TLDR, but if I parse you correctly, you seem to be asking "can someone refuse Secret Service protection." If that is your question, This article answers the question directly.  -- Jayron 32 13:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does answer part of my question quite nicely. Everyone barring the President, Vice President, President-elect, and Vice-President elect can waive their protection. Kudos to Nixon for doing exactly that 11 years after he left office. But it still leaves the bit about Kate Middleton unanswered - how did the British security services feel about her being left unprotected whilst dating Prince William? Am I correct in presuming British law in this regard to be similar - she had the right to refuse protection, regardless? Does she STILL have the right to refuse protection under British law now that she's "Princess Kate", should she choose to do so? How does it work for those in the line to succession to the throne, and their spouses or partners? What are the rules for them about refusing protection? Prince Harry in particular seems to find his bodyguards a major nuisance, and gives the impression that they kill his ability to live a normal carefree life. No, I don't have a citation, that's just my impression. Eliyohub (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To follow up on Bess Truman, the protection she received was not intrusive at all. The Secret Service officer spent most of his time in a parked car in front of the nursing home where she stayed monitoring comings and goings for anything unusual. This case was one of the reasons the Former Presidents Act was later amended to reduce the extent of the protection offered. --Xuxl (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * She's not "Princess Kate". If she weren't the Duchess of Cambridge, she'd be Princess William. Proteus (Talk) 10:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (Awkward indent:) it's a slip that's often made, but Kate Middleton never dated, nor did she marry, the heir to the throne. It was Camilla Parker Bowles who eventually married the heir apparent. Pedantic? Yes - that's one function of the refdesks. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, William is the heir to the heir. So he's second-order heir to the throne.  So he's not the heir to the throne, but an heir to the throne.  Most people's pedantry doesn't extend to the choice of articles... -- Jayron 32 17:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * On VE night in 1945 the princesses Elizabeth and Margaret walked out of Buckingham Palace and joined in the celebrations.  I don't know when protection began for the Royal Family but for commoners it began when Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was given a bodyguard in 1959. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When discussing personages it's sometimes mentioned that so - and - so is fiftieth in line in succession to the throne. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC
 * I'd call William the second heir apparent, because like Charles he cannot be moved down a step. By this logic Charlotte and anyone after her could be described as nth heir presumptive, n≥4. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * One can make up whatever terminology one likes, but it's a private matter and not something that has any place on a reference desk. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't mind people being pedantic, as long as the pedantry doesn't substitute for answers to my question as to protecting the royal family and their partners, and the duty or lack thereof on the part of the protected individual to accept such protection. And how far down the line of succession would the heavy protection go? Eliyohub (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Security to the British Royal Family is provided by the Protection Command of the London Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard). Royals themselves are protected by a unit known as SO14.  According to this, the group provides protection to " anyone considered to be at risk, where intelligence suggests it is necessary and those who have been identified as needing protection by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures."  -- Jayron 32 18:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought Charles could move down a step by coming out as transgender, making Andrew the heir apparent because of male-preference primogeniture (the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 only affects royals born after 28 Oct 2011). Then Princess Anne could also transition, becoming heir apparent ahead of his brother Andrew and sister Charles, etc. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

T. F. Wilson, staff officer at Lucknow
Just bought The Defence of Lucknow, the journal of Captain T. F. Wilson, who was on Sir Henry Lawrence's staff during the Siege of Lucknow. I would be very interested to know more about Wilson and his career, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Ended up a Brigadier General. Some web scrapings:, , , , now a member of the Governor- General’s Council ... I suspect we'll have to do a biography. You've just bought it; but it is available gratis in Internet Archive ... let's hope there's some added value in the deal tree edition. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * And there's this - A Lady's Diary a of the Siege of Lucknow - which may be of interest, though it does not help with your question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The added value in a real book is it never runs out of batteries, smells better than electronics, and feels nicer in the hand. It's also more resistant to being dropped or having a cat sit on it. It's also easier to read, and looks better on a bookcase. The down sides are I can't think of any. Anyway, thanks for the info, a good start! DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * All true. I was tempted to ask for a lend of it once you'd finished with it ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously you'd never get it back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Father was Thomas Fourness Wilson of (afaik) Burley Hall, Burley in Wharfedale, a rather gorgeous looking place --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now a care home. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Giving a reward for solving a murder - to the murderer himself! (or rather, his family)
Here in Australia, the police have a problem. A man named Leslie Camilleri is serving a prison sentence of life without the possibility of parole for the Bega schoolgirl murders. (He is named in the article, so not a BLP violation).

Issue is, he also is serving time for another murder - That of a girl named Prue Bird. There is doubt that he personally killed Prue. So what's the issue, you ask?

Simple: The police desperately want to know: ''who ordered him to kill Prue??? And somewhat less importantly, where is her body?''. Issue is, since he has zero hope of ever being released, he has zero incentive to give answers. Especially as a suspect of ordering the murder of Prue, who is serving time for another murder, the Russell Street Bombing (suspicion is, he ordered the murder of Prue as revenge for her relative testifying against him) is up for parole soon. Police want to know, did he order the murder? (obviously, he denies it). And only Leslie can answer that. And since Leslie has zero chance of ever walking free, he has no reason to open his mouth. I do note a problem here in this particular case: Any information or evidence he provided would need to be ultimately verifiable from other sources, as he would have little credibility as a witness, having told police lie after lie. But if he talked honestly and fully, this may well be possible.

The standard reward for information leading to a conviction for murder is $1 Million. Would there be anything either in law or public policy to offer Leslie that a family member of his choice (a free one, not an incarcerated one) will get the reward money if he "sings" about who it was who ordered the killing, and it leads to that person (or those persons) being convicted? I know it would be strange to reward a killer for naming his paymasters, but is there any law against it? Or any precedent for it?

I'm sure this issue has arisen before, when police for example, arrest a professional mafia hit-man. They want to know who ordered each killing? That may be just as important as nabbing the low-ranking hit-man who pulled the trigger. Assuming the hit-man did get life without parole (and the usual deal is that those who "sing" don't, but some are just too evil to allow eventual freedom regardless), is there any precedent for paying any reward for the solving of the murders to his (the hit-man's) family, in return for him agreeing to "sing", and get his paymasters who ordered the murders locked up? I cringe at rewarding a killer, but locking up his bosses who ordered him to kill (and in many cases will continue ordering murders if not stopped, and will not struggle to find a fresh hit-man to replace the jailed one) may be just as important?

Note: This is not a request for legal advice, I am not the police, there is zero risk of any wikipedian acting on any answers given, I would hope. I don't think any murderer in this situation would dream of taking advice from wikipedia. And I dearly hope there are no murderers reading this! Eliyohub (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can only answer in the US, but these points might apply there, as well:


 * 1) Many jurisdictions have a law preventing anybody from financially profiting from a criminal activity. The main way this is used is to take money away from a murderer who then sells the movie rights to the murder for money.  But, it sounds like it would apply to rewards, too.


 * 2) Plea bargains often reward the murderer with a reduced sentence in exchange for info like the location of the body, or testimony against co-conspirators. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The laws StuRat refers to are called Son of Sam laws in the U.S. While plea bargains would probably have to be before sentencing, police dramas on television often involve offering the prisoner extra privileges inside the prison system or transfer to a better/safer prison. Rmhermen (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The latter isn't directly relevant here, both because he has already been convicted and because the crime for which he's banged up is not the one over which prosecutors might bargain. Detectives in the Bird case might say "we'll tell the parole board you helped us," but in Camilleri's shoes I wouldn't give that much weight.  (Disclaimer: I'm as ignorant of law and procedure as anyone who watches TV and reads magazines.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Why can't they give him tastier food? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't be an advantage for him. Fellow prisoners probably hate snitches. He has a reputation to maintain, since he'll be spending his whole life there. Llaanngg (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The parole board or a sentence cut are out of consideration here, as he has already been sentenced to life without parole, and IMHO, rightfully so. And note this was before he was charged with the Prue murder, giving police no bargaining room. (There may be some provision in the law that a judge could now cut that sentence, but I don't know how realistic that is, given the danger this man poses to society). As to prisoners hating snitches, that may not be a huge consideration here, as given the nature of his crimes (raping and killing schoolgirls) he's probably in a protection unit, where practically everyone is either a snitch, a rapist, kiddie fiddler, or murdered a kid. Everyone a regular prisoner despises, and would love to kill. My question does mainly focus on the fact that the reward would go to his family, and there's no practical way they'll ever get any significant amount of it to him. Prisoners can have a small amount of money deposited into their prison account ($30 a week, I think - if his family or friends visit, they probably already do this anyways, so nothing may change), but he himself will never get to enjoy those million bucks. (He's never walking free, remember?) Does this change the situation re son of sam laws? Also the fact Tamfang mentioned, that his own crime and that over which prosecutors might bargain, whilst intimately linked, are not the same. Eliyohub (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No idea about Australia but in the US, there are some Club Fed prisons that are much more comfortable than regular prisons to be incarcerated in. So they could offer to move him to something like that.  Or maybe he could disclose the info to a family member or associate, who could then come forward and claim the reward. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestions. The latter is a realistic idea possibly. The former is probably not possible, due to prisoner security considerations. If he was classified as minimum security, they could put him in any prison, and choose the most comfortable one. If he's a high security prisoner, as in, deemed an escape risk or a risk to other prisoners, choices are far more limited. Also the need to protect him from other inmates given the nature of his crimes limits choices in prison placement. One inmate in a similar situation was offered escorted leave to visit a prostitute (prostitution is legal here), but I think think this particular prisoner would pose a deadly risk to the prostitute. Eliyohub (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

maintaining (British?) Army standards while under siege
The Lucknow question reminds me to ask this. I heard an apocryphal story of an imperial army bearing up under strain; it was told as set in British India, but I imagine it could have come from any of the grand European colonial armies. There was a siege - not much fighting, but a lot of waiting on high alert and hoping for rescue. Rations were strict. The garrison grew lean and hungry. The officers ate every day in full uniform (increasingly loose and ill-fitting uniforms, as they slowly starved), even when all they had to eat was curried cat and a crust of mouldy bread; they could still toast the Queen over their white linen tablecloth, albeit with empty glasses. Keeping up standards, and morale, and stiff upper lips, and all that. Eventually rescue came, and when the dust of battle settled, the newly unbesieged wished to celebrate and thank their rescuers with a ceremonial feast. One of the remaining horses was slaughtered. When the head waiter pulled the silver salver off the roast rump of Dobbin, the colonel in charge sent it back with great aplomb as insufficiently cooked. Or perhaps it was that the Champagne was insufficiently chilled. The point of the story is the aplomb. Can any such anecdote be verified? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "curried cat and a crust of mouldy bread" ? That's disgusting ... I HATE bread crust ! StuRat (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * agree: Indian Basmati rice goes well with curried cat, so there was no excuse for serving up mouldy-old-dough. Add a good dollop of lime chilly chutney and I would be asking for second helpings of such a purr- fect meal.--Aspro (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Possibly from the Siege of Kut, where apparently the callous British officer corps's greatest gripe was their boredom and unappealing food, while soldiers starved to death.This article discusses it some. Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend was in particular noted for his callousness and aplomb during the seige, ignoring the plight of his men while he was treated as a guest of the Turkish state.-- Jayron 32 18:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the Seige of Kut ended badly with ignominious surrender. User:Jayron32's comments require some qualification and refer to the period following the end of the siege; surrender had only been accepted following Turkish assurances of "humane treatment" for the troops, The British officers were separated from their men at an early stage and it's unclear how much they knew about their privations, other than that they were dismayed to see the sick and wounded being marched away rather than transported - see the comments of an officer and poet called Geoffrey Elton here. It's true that the force commander, Charles Vere Ferrers Townshend, was vilified in the British press after the war for accepting better conditions than his men, but this seems to be somewhat unfair as prisoners are rarely able to dictate the conditions provided to others, even if they know what they are. The real blame lies with the Turkish Army who behaved abominably, and with the Indian Army Staff who put Townshend into an impossible position. Incidentally, my grandfather was the first officer of a troopship which transported an Australian infantry brigade for the relief of Kut - that didn't go well either. We still have the menu card for their "last supper" signed by all the officers. Alansplodge (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, it seems that I have to qualify my own remarks, I was working from memory. It seems that Townshend was culpable on a few points: 1) His failure to attempt a breakout from Kut, probably because it would have shown that his decision to stop at Kut, rather than fall back on Basra was wrong. However, retreating to Basra would have meant abandoning a large number of wounded or have them die on the road. 2) After his capture, allowing himself to be used as a propaganda tool by the Turks. 3) Hubris on his return to the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A good beginning, thank you, but I hope another military historian might be able to come up with something closer to the anecdote I heard. I'd not heard of Townshend, and his biography is the longest and baggiest I've seen here for many moons. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a voluminous Category:Sieges involving the United Kingdom so there are quite a few to choose from. Your story is slightly reminiscent of Carry On Up the Khyber (1968) in which a besieged British provincial governor and his staff calmly continue their dinner during an artillery bombardment. When part of the ceiling is brought down on their heads, the governor's wife, Lady Ruff-Diamond, says "Oh dear, I seem to be a little plastered". Surely one of the great moments of British cinema. Good luck with your search, I could find nothing similar. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Do humans live in poverty if they just scavenge for discarded supplies like rodents?
Rodents live with humans for a steady food supply. If a human feeds off of cooked urban rodents, earthworms, bugs, edible plants like dandelions, and discarded trash in trash bins behind supermarkets and restaurants and knows some self-defense skills and tries to live like a raccoon or a city rat and accepts death as a natural part of life, then is that human living in poverty? Now, if that human uses his own legal citizenship status to find a job and get paid in money but chooses to only spend the money on buying land and planting native flora to invite native fauna (like deer and wolves) to live safely from dangerous highways, what obstacles may occur? How may a human convert farmland or a suburban house back into a forest? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Poverty is defined various ways, usually someone whose annual income is below that which is necessary to maintain a minimum quality of life as defined by the context of the society in which they live. You can read more about those minimum thresholds at the Wikipedia article titled Poverty threshold.  These definitions are not dependent on their willingness to eat other people's trash, but on the quantifiable comparison of their own income to that of the minimum standard of living in the society in which they live.  Your second question seems unrelated to the first, but rather seems related to what is called living "Off-the-grid".  You can read more about that in the Wikipedia article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Converting farmland to forest is known as re-wilding. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Edgelands. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Tristram Shandy
I am currently reading (or, at least, trying to read) Tristram Shandy from a Greek translation. After finding myself stuck in chapter four, I browsed the original English from Project Gutenberg... and it still did not make sense (I know that it is not always supposed to make sense, but in this case, it looks like I am missing something).

The text says:

'I was begot in the night betwixt the first Sunday and the first Monday in the month of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighteen. I am positive I was.—But how I came to be so very particular in my account of a thing which happened before I was born, is owing to another small anecdote known only in our own family, but now made publick for the better clearing up this point.'

'My father, you must know, who was originally a Turkey merchant, but had left off business for some years, in order to retire to, and die upon, his paternal estate in the county of ——, was, I believe, one of the most regular men in every thing he did, whether 'twas matter of business, or matter of amusement, that ever lived. As a small specimen of this extreme exactness of his, to which he was in truth a slave, he had made it a rule for many years of his life,—on the first Sunday-night of every month throughout the whole year,—as certain as ever the Sunday-night came,—to wind up a large house-clock, which we had standing on the back-stairs head, with his own hands:—And being somewhere between fifty and sixty years of age at the time I have been speaking of,—he had likewise gradually brought some other little family concernments to the same period, in order, as he would often say to my uncle Toby, to get them all out of the way at one time, and be no more plagued and pestered with them the rest of the month.'

It was attended but with one misfortune, which, in a great measure, fell upon myself, and the effects of which I fear I shall carry with me to my grave; namely, that from an unhappy association of ideas, which have no connection in nature, it so fell out at length, that my poor mother could never hear the said clock wound up,—but the thoughts of some other things unavoidably popped into her head—& vice versa:—Which strange combination of ideas, the sagacious Locke, who certainly understood the nature of these things better than most men, affirms to have produced more wry actions than all other sources of prejudice whatsoever.

But this by the bye.

'Now it appears by a memorandum in my father's pocket-book, which now lies upon the table, 'That on Lady-day, which was on the 25th of the same month in which I date my geniture,—my father set upon his journey to London, with my eldest brother Bobby, to fix him at Westminster school;' and, as it appears from the same authority, 'That he did not get down to his wife and family till the second week in May following,'—it brings the thing almost to a certainty. However, what follows in the beginning of the next chapter, puts it beyond all possibility of a doubt.'

—But pray, Sir, What was your father doing all December, January, and February?—Why, Madam,—he was all that time afflicted with a Sciatica.

What I am asking for, is, what is the relevance of the prose after "But this by the bye"? If he was born in November, as he says later, I suppose that he did not need to know for sure that he had not been conceived in December, January or February... I mean, in 1718, existing medical knowledge must have reached the phase of knowing for sure that pregnancies last nine months... Or, maybe, the hypothetical "madam" would "ask" her "question" precisely because he had not mentioned his month of birth....

In fact, I may have already found the answer myself, but I could not resist the temptation of asking here for other opinions... 2A02:587:290B:AF00:3878:9B55:DF4D:92BF (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure people knew in 1718 that pregnancies lasted for 9 (lunar, actually) months. The understanding of conception was vague at best back then. They could well have assumed a shorter time-frame. Llaanngg (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The ancients were well aware of the human gestation period. This is why March 25 was assigned as Annunciation Day and December 25 was assigned as Christmas Day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What was his father doing all of March, April and part of May? Shandy was born November 5 and his father left for London on November 25. Sleigh (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Lady Day is the 25th March (not 25th November) - Sterne uses "geniture" to mean conception, not birth. Tristram can date his conception to between 1st March (as before then his father had sciatica) and 24th March (as after then his father was in London).  Tevildo (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The birthdate is correct - 5 November 1718.  Tristram believes he was "begot in the night betwixst the first Sunday and the first Monday in the month of March" - i.e. early on 3 March 1718.   This is a work of fiction but it looks to me as if somebody, noting the unusually short period between the putative date of conception and birth, enquired what his father was doing in  February. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...because the most likely date of conception for someone born 5 November is February 12. - Nunh-huh 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Will Trump, as president, have to disclose his financial situation, taxes paid and so on?
Will Trump, as president, have to disclose his financial situation, taxes paid and so on?Llaanngg (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No. See here. Presidents (like presidential candidates) release their returns on a voluntary basis. - Nunh-huh 23:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Relatedly, while it is not legally required, it is customary for the US President to place their assets into a blind trust in order to remove the appearance of choosing their policies for the purpose of self enrichment. Mr. Trump has indicated that his children will manage his organization via a blind trust, but ethics advisors question whether a trust managed by one's children is truly blind, and suggest that such an action is mere window dressing which will do "nothing to resolve conflicts of interest".-- ToE 02:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a question: Does this apply only to a President? Or does it also apply to others in official positions which would allow them to make conflict-of-interest decisions, such members of the board of the Federal Reserve? (interest rate changes affect practically every investment on the market). Eliyohub (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump has to be joking.  Here's how British politicians eliminate conflicts of interest. 80.44.161.39 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In general, members of the Federal Reserve place their assets in a blind trust, and also sell off any bank stocks or government bonds whose value might be directly affected by Federal Reserve decisions. President Obama didn't place his assets in a blind trust, saying he didn't have to because he didn't have a lot of stock holdings. - Nunh-huh 22:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Most US government officials are bound by conflict of interest laws that limit what assets they can directly own and control while serving in government. However, those laws are created by Congress.  The US Constitution's separation of powers between the three branches of the US government limits the ability of Congress to write laws that would bind the actions of people serving in other key constitutional offices (President, Vice President, Supreme Court).   As a result, those office holders are exempt from the conflict-of-interest laws (and a whole host of other laws that might otherwise limit their ability to serve in Government).  Historically, both the President and the Court have voluntarily taken steps to avoid conflicts of interest and other problems, but no one has the authority to force them to do so.  As a general rule, government officials serving in positions not explicitly enumerated in the constitution, i.e. most of them, do have to respect the conflict-of-interest laws written by Congress, as do Congressmen themselves.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)