Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 July 2

= July 2 =

Swedish source
There's a picture of a Sweden girl with bloody face, which was a victim of a Muslim gang. Just google for 'sweden rape bloodied face'. I am having difficulties finding the original article (from 2005). Can someone provide it?--Hofhof (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Providing original sources of the purview of WP:REX. Maybe someone there can help?-- Jayron 32 04:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this photo [//photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1949/552/1600/NYHETER-17s09-09valdtakt-512.jpg]? That photo is used [//dansk-svensk.blogspot.co.nz/2005/11/etnisk-transformation-i-aftonbladet.html] and elsewhere in association with a story which blew up on the web around the end of November 2005, but I'd urge strong caution on trusting any details on such sites. Using a Google reverse image search, I did find [//www.vdare.com/letters/a-reader-asks-about-the-fate-of-a-swedish-victim-of-immigrant-rape] which seems to be a photo of the Expressen tabloid frontpage from 26 March 2005 with the same photo. A search on their site finds [//www.expressen.se/nyheter/de-slog-och-slog/] which seems to confirm it was really their front page. That story also suggests they appeared on a TV programme in Sweden called Wanted. It's possible the image was broadcast there as the story suggests the victim wanted the image to be shown at the time. However the photo on the above blog clearly isn't from the newspaper cover (the one on the blog has more details including a time stamp) and I can't find any other variant on the Expressen site. I don't think, but can't be certain that it's a screen cap of a still from TV either.  The blog does mention another source however that [//web.archive.org/web/20070616145533/http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,737067,00.html]/ doesn't seem to have the photo. (It also links to a search of the TV3 page, what it's supposed to find I'm not sure but unsurprisingly it doesn't work and I don't think you'll have much luck find an archive.) But I noticed our article on Expressen mentions Aftonbladet as the other main Swedish tabloid.  Sure enough a search of their site of images using the victim's name and age finds a story with the photo [//www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article10665757.ab] including the details cut off in the other tabloid's front page. (It is possible the other tabloid has or had it somewhere on their webpage too. It's very hard to know precisely what was and wasn't available after such a long time most of the time.)  Note since the victim at the time wanted the photo to be published, it's possible it was also shown elsewhere so there may be multiple sources depending on what you mean by 'original source'. Aftonbladet lists SJUKHUSET as a source. I think this probably just means it came from some hospital (which makes sense since it looks like it was taken in a hospital) rather than the TV programme Se:Sjukhuset (TV-serie) but don't know for sure. Since the victim wanted the photo to be published at the time, it's possible that she was the direct source for some places rather than it coming directly from the hospital. (It seems likely the hospital or whoever took the photo would have provided it to her on request.)  P.S. Many years later, the same photo became that of the victim an an alleged attack in the UK [//www.care2.com/news/member/683342450/3925643] showing why you should take great care with sources which don't properly document their work and don't have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy.  Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough answer. And yes, I know that this picture (of a young blond female with big blue eyes, bloody) can and is used by scaremongers. Hofhof (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How do farmers pay taxes?
Their income seems to be the plants they grow. So, how do they pay taxes? Are they allowed to pay in terms of plants, or does the government estimate the value of the harvest? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please tell us which specific jurisdiction. The world is a varied place, and helping you research tax codes in a specific place requires you to tell us which place you want to find the tax codes for; also note that some countries like the US or UAE are likely to have different codes in each federated state, so if you want US, you'll need to specify a specific state as well.-- Jayron 32 04:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see. Most humans in the world live in Asia. I'll pick India. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The National government of India does not collect taxes on agriculturally products. However India, like the US, is a federation.  Individual Indian states have their own tax codes, so some may collect agricultural taxes.  Any other jurisdictions you need help finding?-- Jayron 32 05:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What is a tax code? How is it used? Why does it have to be a code? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the context of laws, a "code" is the term for the body of laws on a topic. See Code of law for a more comprehensive definition.  The term "tax code" means "the body of laws dealing with taxation".  For a concrete example, the full body of active laws issued by the US federal government is called the United States Code.  The use of the word "code" in this context is unrelated to other uses, such as a synonym for cipher.-- Jayron 32 06:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note however our article Income tax in India suggests certain agricultural products (tea, coffee and latex/cenex) are part counted as business income so may incur income tax. I presume this is mentioned in the act above, but it talks about various boards so I couldn't be bothered working out what it's referring to. But although uncited our article is specific enough I strongly suspect it is or was right. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Usually they sell their crops for money, some of which they use to pay taxes. Modern governments don't want to be paid tax in kind because it's way too much trouble for them. One exception, noted in the tax in kind article, is North Korea from 1947 to 1966, but then North Korea isn't your average state. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't of course unique to governments. It's likely that anyone else the farmer is involved with e.g. those supplying fertiliser, equipment or seeds, etc expect the same. Even workers tend to want cash salaries. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add this isn't unique to farmers either. People in manufacturing or mining may be producing something. They make an income by selling it. Not just to pay those who help them make that income, but also because if they want clothes (for example) for personal use unrelated to their work, these people generally want money not crops. Barter exists and there's perhaps a renewed focus on it, but even considering the developing world, exchanges generally involve money or some other intermediary in some form, not barter. ([//www.forbes.com/sites/denakouremetis/2012/10/22/bartering-for-survival-have-i-got-a-deal-for-you/] suggests 15% of international trade is on a non cash basis although this doesn't actually tell us much about how much farmers use it. [//www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-commodities-financing-idUSKBN0TJ20F20151130] suggests 20% up to 40% in Brazil of operational costs via barter. Don't know about India, I see many sources e.g. [//www.telegraphindia.com/1161218/jsp/frontpage/story_125359.jsp]  discussing an increase after the cash crunch due to the demonetisation but not estimates of percentages.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Of course before anyone points it out, yes one difference between goverments and others is that you may be able to find someone who will give you clothes etc for your crops. If the government expects cash and as said by others they nearly always do, then you have little chance convincing them to accept your crops. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ... and, of course, not all farmers sell crops. Some have an income only from animals, so there used to be an arrangement with grocery suppliers that the bill would be paid only when animals were sold.  For modern farmers, a bank loan is more common.  Here in the UK, farmers' taxes are usually paid after the end of the financial year, so wise farmers save money from crops or animals to cover this commitment.    D b f i r s   10:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does the United States enter so many wars?
Back in social studies class, I learned that the United States didn't want to enter any of the European conflicts until they were drawn in during the Great War. Then, the Great Depression and World War II followed. After World War II, the US entered the Korean War and the Vietnam War and the War on Terror and the Iraqi War. I'm not really sure if the United States has ever been in peacetime or if it has always engaged in war. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They were terrified of communism.  Recently, however, they've been dialling back their involvement. 86.2.21.152 (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As George Orwell famously explained, war is peace. Or at least it is now.  (that was actually the second seal of the Revelation; see spontaneous symmetry breaking, though really I mean the reverse...)  Is the U.S. at war in Pakistan?  Nobody knows!  Is the Pakistan government for or against us?  Nobody knows!  See Drone strikes in Pakistan.  Is the Mexican Drug War a war or law enforcement?  You tell me... your guess is as good as anyone's.  Some relevant theory in low intensity conflict. Wnt (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Great Depression was not a war, although it may have felt like that to many people. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Countries like France, Germany or the UK also entered many wars, but unlike them the US is a superpower, so it historically wanted to influence foreign affairs by military means. This was especially true during the Cold War. But there was a period of the United States non-interventionism. Brandmeistertalk  11:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See also From Korea to Vietnam: The Origins and Mindset of Postwar U.S. Interventionism. Alansplodge (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

We have a detailed List of wars involving the United States, if you want a timeline. As for the lack of peacetime:
 * The American Revolutionary War lasted from 1775 to 1783.
 * The Cherokee–American wars lasted from 1776 to 1776 to 1795.
 * Peacetime from 1795 to 1798.
 * The Quasi-War lasted from 1798 to 1800.
 * The First Barbary War lasted from 1801 to 1805.
 * Peacetime from 1805 to 1810.
 * Tecumseh's War lasted from 1810 to 1813.
 * The War of 1812 lasted from 1812 to 1815.
 * The Second Barbary War was fought in 1815.
 * The Seminole Wars lasted from 1816 to 1858.
 * The Texas–Indian wars lasted from 1820 to 1875.
 * The Apache Wars lasted from 1849 to 1924.
 * The Banana Wars lasted from 1898 to 1934.
 * Peacetime from 1934 to 1939/1941.
 * World War II lasted from 1939 to 1945, with the United States officially entering in 1941. (Unofficially it had taken anti-Axis actions since the War begun.)
 * Peacetime from 1945 to 1950.
 * The Korean War lasted from 1950 to 1953.
 * Peacetime from 1953 to 1955.
 * The Vietnam War lasted from 1955 to 1975, with the United States ending their involvement by 1973.
 * The Communist insurgency in Thailand lasted from 1965 to 1983.
 * The Lebanese Civil War lasted from 1975 to 1990.
 * The Gulf War lasted from 1990 to 1991.
 * The Somali Civil War started in 1986 and is still ongoing. Official United States involvement lasted from 1992 to 1995, though they are unofficially still involved.
 * The Yugoslav Wars lasted from 1991 to 2001. Official United States involvement lasted from 1994 to 1995, and again from 1998 to 1999.
 * The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) started in 2001 and is still ongoing. United States involvement never really ended.

While ignoring various wars, the above list suggests that in 242 years of existence (1775-2017), the United States is almost always involved in one or more wars. It has not seen real peacetime since 1955. Dimadick (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding war and peace, you should always consider that war is the normal, very easy to happen (you just need one belligerent to start one) and peace the exception (it takes two, sometime more, to agree into peace). So the question is rather: why would USA be at peace, when you have so many weak nations to prey upon, and so many domestic (racial/political/economical) troubles that war distract from ? Gem fr (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

According to our Vietnam War article, the US began sending military advisors into French Indochina in 1950, with the creation of the Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG). However, President Eisenhower resisted putting American units on the ground without British support. In May 1961, President Kennedy sent 400 Special Forces troops to Vietnam to train soldiers. By November, the number had increased to 16,000.DOR (HK) (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are there war criminals and war crimes?
Back in the olden days, I thought warriors on the winning side could just take the land, rape the women, kill the men and children, or enslave all enemies and their relatives. Captured prisoners of war could be tortured to death. Nowadays, why are the losing side's enemies of war taken to trial and not, for example, sentenced to a life of indentured servitude or slavery for the winning side? Isn't war supposed to mean fight, torture, kill, loot, rape, and dominate the opponent? 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:56 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're sad to see that go there's still countries on this Earth where they still do that. Heck, there's still countries where they not only kill the children but force them to beat their parents to death, kill with machine guns, be raped and they even rape babies. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The concept of War crime emerged at the international level with the adoption of the treaties during the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Trials of Axis war criminals established the Nuremberg principles and the Geneva Conventions in 1949 established that states could exercise universal jurisdiction over such crimes. Blooteuth (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The roots go back much further -- see Peace and Truce of God. Though Quaker-like Christian pacifism has long been rare, the overall concept of just war theory emerged from an idea that these things were evils to be avoided. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in How to Fight Like a Gentleman – Six Astounding Rules of War From the 18th Century if you skip the anti-Trump polemic at the beginning. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of war is to force another government to do something that you want and they don't. That could be "give us your land", "trade with us on our terms", "stop supporting our enemies", or "stop trying to make us do all those things".  Merely killing/maiming their soldiers and civilians isn't necessarily the most effective way to do that, and may actually be counterproductive (if you want them to change sides and support you, or produce stuff for you).  Furthermore, you ultimately have to make peace with the enemy, and (often) live/work with them afterwards.  A lot of things that are banned as war crimes are things that either aren't actually very effective at defeating the enemy, and/or would make it more likely they do the same to you, and/or would make it harder to make peace at the end.  For example, torture isn't a very reliable way of getting information, and most soldiers probably don't know enough to make a difference anyway.  But if you torture your prisoners, people will be less likely to surrender to you.  (Ditto for any other mistreatment of prisoners).  Conversely, faking a surrender in order to sneak-attack the enemy tends to encourage them to kill people rather than taking prisoners.  Finally, to do well in a war, you generally need the support of both your own population and of allies.  If one side is being particularly brutal or evil, then they are less likely to get such support, and their opponents are more likely to.


 * I would say this goes back at least to the Roman Empire. They figured out that if they wiped out all their enemies completely, this left just burned land of no use to them in the long term.  Better to co-opt the enemy, by giving them some degree of self-rule, in exchange for tribute, providing soldiers for the Empire, etc.  For example, they tried this in ancient Israel, until a series of rebellions led them back to the "kill them (almost) all and enslave any survivors" concept.  Even the NAZIs figured out that they needed allies and co-opted many local factions to gain them, rather than wipe them all out.  StuRat (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Per the article on prisoner of war: "Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, some guerrilla fighters, and certain civilians. It applies from the moment a prisoner is captured until he or she is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners and states that a prisoner can only be required to give their name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable)."

By the way, why do you assume wartime sexual violence only targets adult women? Underage girls are frequently targeted "by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group.". Rapes of male victims are more rare, but not unusual either:
 * "The rape of men by other men is also common in war. A 2009 study by Lara Stemple found that it had been documented in conflicts worldwide; for example, 76% of male political prisoners in 1980s El Salvador and 80% of concentration camp inmates in Sarajevo reported being raped or sexually tortured. Stemple concludes that the "lack of attention to sexual abuse of men during conflict is particularly troubling given the widespread reach of the problem". Mervyn Christian of Johns Hopkins School of Nursing has found that male rape is commonly underreported."
 * "According to a survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2010, 30% of women and 22% of men from the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo reported that they had been subject to conflict-related sexual violence. Despite the popular perception that rape during conflict is primarily targeted against women, these figures show that sexual violence committed against men is not a marginal occurrence. The lack of awareness for the magnitude of the rape of men during conflict relates to chronic underreporting. Although the physical and psychological repercussions from rape are similar for women and men, male victims tend to demonstrate an even greater reluctance to report their suffering to their families or the authorities." Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * "why are the losing side's enemies of war taken to trial and not, for example, sentenced to a life of indentured servitude or slavery for the winning side?"
 * Obviously because this would look like some barbaric, old-fashioned, Might makes right domination, as you point out.
 * nowadays it looks far better to have such things done under the guise of justice, to kill or jail people not just because you are the winner, but because they are filthy war criminals (which they are, of course, aren't they?) and you are a good, justice serving, guy.
 * I don't know of any instance when a victorious nation sued for war crime it's own loyal military (In some instance, losing nations did sue their military, just like the winning nation would), or got its leaders sued. Do you?
 * No, no leader or military of a winning side was ever sued, even when having committed quite obvious war crimes. You can bet that Churchill and Roosevelt would had been sentenced to death for war crimes, had they lost the war. There are enough evidence of their implication in bombing of civilian for no military purpose. And Stalin, of course...
 * And, on the other hand, you bet that Saddam Hussein or Bashar al-Assad could/would stage war crime trials just as Stalin had.
 * Bottom line: it is just a matter of show
 * Gem fr (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Michael Flynn
Will Michael Flynn be granted immunity?4.16.42.123 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The article says immunity was refused, but "a compromise" was reached, however the article does not expand on the nature of the agreement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this particular case. But a common compromise in this sort of situation is some sort of formal guarantee that any evidence they provide (in this case, to the senate) in such a setting will not be admissible in any trial against them. This doesn't stop them from being potentially charged based on other evidence. I know in many jurisdictions, there are laws allowing such guarantees to be given (such as when a person is ordered to testify against a co-accused), but I'm not sure if the U.S. Senate has any similar power? Come to think of it, wouldn't testimony given in a Senate hearing fall under Parliamentary privilege, preventing it from being used as evidence in a criminal trial? Can someone clarify this point? Does Parliamentary privilege protect incriminating evidence of criminal activity given in parliament from being used in a criminal trial, or even as evidence to get a judge to issue a search warrant? Eliyohub (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the actual members of the parliament/legislature are protected by parliamentary privilege. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * EDIT: here is a useful rundown on immunity law and Flynn, which covers the issues I've raisd, and will provide some general answers. Eliyohub (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

what is the circle pattern on the chinese shirt
https://tanailee.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/traditional-chinese-ethnic-dress-men-kung.jpg http://image.dhgate.com/albu_402472539_00/1.0x0.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.212.253 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what they are called, but they look a lot like the circular flowery works of art you find in Chinese paper cutting. Some websites selling clothes call them "Chinese folk circle". They seem to be a popular pattern on tangzhuangs. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's similar to a Japanese mon described as a crest. Sleigh (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Such clothing is traditional changshan, but don't know about the circles. Brandmeistertalk  10:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the one shown in the photo though. Changshan is the robe - the jacket is the "riding jacket" (馬褂). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Some information about the symbolism of circular patterns (in ceramics) is at The Meaning of China's Most Ancient Art (p. 136) by Anneliese Bulling. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * They are called "tuan" (團) embroidery. "Tuan" means things gathered into a ball, e.g. a ball of wool or a cluster of flowers. The specific pattern is usually identified by the subject matter, e.g. 團龍, "balled dragon", is a circular pattern of a dragon, such as used on emperors' robes, and 團花, "balled flower" or "balled pattern", is either a circular pattern of flower patterns or just any generic balled pattern. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)