Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 November 23

= November 23 =

Can US TV channels refuse the highest bidder solely cause they don't like your candidate?
For a TV commercial slot. What about campaign ads in other countries? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No idea about other countries, but in the US this is covered by the equal-time rule, which only applies to broadcasters running ads on behalf of candidates. It does not apply to running news or documentaries about a candidate or their campaign, nor does it apply to ads run by people not running for office and also unaffiliated/not-coordinating with someone who is. Basically, "please vote for me" and "please vote for that guy" are treated differently. Broadcasters are singled out because space is limited on public airwaves. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * For the UK see Party political broadcast, you can't run political advertising per se on television or radio. See also Campaign advertising. A number of countries ban ads purely to stop those parties with a bigger budget drowning out the others. Nanonic (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Apo of Atimaha

 * Bishop Museum Archives, MS 5-S9, Apo of Atimaha, Encouagement aux indigènes Huahine qui vont aux combats, trans. by Reverend Orsmond (September 20, 1849) ms.

I came across this source in Empire of Love: Histories of France and the Pacific, I am try to figure about what is it exactly about and who was Apo of Atimaha. KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Doyen, raatira, Atimaha Valley, Moorea.&mdash;eric 15:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Apo, doyen des Raatiras d'Atimaha (ile Moorea)"
 * That's the wrong location for the valley in geonames, see point #13 on this map.&mdash;eric 15:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Apo seems to have had a ceremonial role; in Annuaire historique universel ou histoire politique pour 1855 p. 300 there is a description of "Apo, doyen des raatiras d'Atimaha" delivering a funerary speech to (presumably) Pōmare IV:
 * "Hail to you, Pomare Queen of Tahiti! Hail to you in the name of the true God! We come here, we chiefs, judges, mutois (constables) and raatiras (freemen) of the districts, to salute you and to weep with you [for] the death of your son".
 * (D'oh! I've just realised that this is the same text linked above in Voyage aux îles Gambier, but if your French is even worse than mine, that's what it says - probably!) Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * BTW, the title of the source, "Encouragement aux indigènes Huahine qui vont aux combats", means: "Encouragement to the Huahine indigenous people who go to battle". The text of it doesn't seem to be available online, but it probably refers to the Franco-Tahitian War, during which a force of French marines landed on Huahine but were defeated at the Battle of Maeva (there's an article to write if anyone is bored). The underlying cause of the war was a somewhat un-Godly dispute between Anglophone Protestant missionaries and French Catholics, the latter being supported by their government as a pretext for colonial expansion. This article demonstrates Protestant support for the Huahine locals whom it calls "our afflicted brethren". The same article mentions a "a beautiful letter which she [Queen Pomare] has addressed to her people here" outlining the details of the battle and I wonder if this is could be the text in question? Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There may be an extract in this doctoral thesis: google for (can't get link to work) page 164 in the PDF, 149 in the text. I am not sure that this is what we are looking for, there is a note for "Orsmond's annotation to Apo, Huahinean War Chant" on p. 150 in the PDF, 135 in the text.&mdash;eric 16:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Different sources, so possibly not the correct chant. The quoted piece is from which is a published volume of Ormond's papers. Roussier, from the note connected to Apo was published in .&mdash;eric 16:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The journal is in the HathiTrust catalog so you might have some luck asking at WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request.&mdash;eric 16:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

fastest growing language
Which languages are considered as language of the future? Some say Chinese Mandarin, some websites say Spanish.

English will always remain one of the most spoken second language. When I search online, I get results of most spoken language for native speakers and spoken as second language.

Europe, Russia, Japan, USA, Canada has low birth rate while Africa and South Asia has higher birth rate. So, it's possible some European language speakers are decreasing every year.

In future which languages are more likely to be used for international relations, business? -- 13:12, 23 November 2019 Gökkusagipiyanisti


 * The fastest-growing language (percentagewise) is likely to be a relatively small one, not one of the world's major languages... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would recommend the questioner inquire somewhere with experts on the topic, for example users on Language Log. It would help if the questioner told us where they live, where they want to live, and what they want to do. Or call the EU. Does anyone have their phone number? Temerarius (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A candidate mentioned in several future-set works of science fiction of the 1960s was Portugese, on the assumption that Brazil's economic and population growth would continue until it became a globally dominant nation. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Viagens Interplanetarias... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AnonMoos: I'd forgotten the trope went back as far as the 1940s. I've also seen it alluded to by other writers than L. Sprague de Camp. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) ~


 * One opinion: "My opinion is that for the next few decades, yes, it [English] will stay as the Lingua Franca for the entire planet, as more people are learning this language every day. China for example is teaching it's people English at a very fast pace to assist in their goal of being the dominant economic power in the world. I do feel that the other two languages mentioned above, Chinese and Spanish, will become increasingly important global languages that in 50 years will be essential for anybody doing international business to know. You won't have to be perfectly fluent in these languages, however having enough of a grasp of them for even basic communication would be a huge benefit to almost anybody".
 * And another: "In many parts of the world, English is still regarded as a passport to success. So is the future of English at risk? I don't think so, although its global dominance may well diminish over the coming decades". BBC - Can English remain the 'world's favourite' language?. Alansplodge (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This report by a nonprofit suggests that the UK's greatest future needs will be for people fluent in Spanish, Arabic, French and Mandarin (in that order), followed by German, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, Turkish and Japanese. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Trump-Ukraine scandal, is what Trump and his associated did a crime?
I understand from the Mueller Report that Trump can't be charged with a crime while in office, but several associates of his were for their role in the Russia scandal. Isn't it the same case here, or did he and associates not break the law regarding Ukraine and quid pro quo?
 * It would have to be proven in a court of law. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm curious if what they "allegedly" did a crime to begin with


 * Actually, none of Trump’s associates were charged with a crime “due to their role in the Russia scandal”. They were charged with crimes that were unrelated to the Russia scandal (but discovered while investigating it).  Subtle, but important difference. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect in at least one case, that of Michael Flynn. --Amble (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope... Flynn was convicted of lying to the FBI over a different issue. Yes it was about him talking to Russians (which is why it came to light during Muller’s investigation), but it had nothing to do with the election meddling accusation. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The OP and your response said “the Russia scandal”, not “accused of election meddling.” I think you’re shifting the goalposts here. --Amble (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Even by your new criterion, “nothing to do with the election meddling accusation” is not correct. Flynn’s communications appeared to be undercutting penalties imposed on Russia in response to election meddling. --Amble (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Flynn may also be in violation of the Logan act, though that law has never been effectively enforced. Depending on how random Rudy Giuliani was flailing around, he might also have been in violation, unless all his actions are authorized by Trump. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * With the caveat that I am native to and live on a different continent: my doubtless imperfect understanding is that while it may or may not be the case (being thus far untested by the SCOTUS) that the POTUS him/her/themself is above the law, that does not apply to others who may carry out illegal acts ordered by the POTUS. The concept of Criminal orders may apply, as might the terms of various officials' Oaths of Office. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect to general crimes, you are probably right. But the Logan act criminalizes unauthorized negotiations with foreign powers, and the president can authorize such negotiations. So if he gave Giuliani carte blanche, Giuliani may well be guilty of extortion, bribery, and conspiracy to illegally overthrow the US constitution (and could be prosecuted for that), but he would not be in violation of the Logan act. If, on the other hand, he had a limited mandate, or none at all, and negotiated for the delivery of two pounds of flathead nails on behalf of the US, he would be technically in violation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that BlueBoar's exception seems too far. If Flynn's dealing with Russia occurred before he got involved with Trump, or perhaps after he'd fallen out with Trump perhaps it would make sense to consider them separate. But since they occurred while he was involved with Trump, it's difficult to definitely conclude they didn't have something to do with Russia's election interference since ultimately there is a lot we do not know about their interference let alone why Flynn did what he did, even with the Mueller Report (which I have not read) except that there was not sufficient evidence the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities". Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)\
 * I should clarify when I said "we" I meant the general public based on the evidence available e.g. the Mueller report, the documents about his conviction etc, although I'm sure even those with intimate details like those in the intelligence agencies still don't know a lot and are only guessing. Anyway to explain things in a different way, let's say person A murders person B. There is strong evidence in the form of video etc. Maybe there is also evidence their motive was jealousy. Person A agrees to plead guilty to the murder but indicates while they will say say how they did it etc, they will not give a motivation or even they will give a motivation that doesn't agree with the evidence available. The prosecution probably after consulting with the family, chooses to accept this, and the defendant allocutes their crime but doesn't mention anything about jealousy. Does this mean it's accurate to say person A was convicted of murder but it had nothing to do with jealousy? I would suggest no. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And looking at the Muller report, the section say and while I'm sure a bit more has been mentioned in stuff released relating to his conviction, this affirms my view there's a lot we don't know about why he did what he did.  In any case, I agree with Amble. Even if Flynn and anyone who may have asked him to have that conversation didn't have Russia's election interference under consideration, it's weird at a basic level to suggest it was unrelated when what he was asking them to do that he lied about, was not retaliate to sanctions because of the alleged election interference. In other words, maybe their motivation had nothing to do with Russian's election interference, but it was something that was related to the interference.  And in a similar vein, I think we also have to consider Roger Stone. As I understand it, the US government seems to have concluded the Podesta emails hack was carried out by hackers link to Russia and is therefore part of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Wikileaks denies this and individual editors are free to believe what they want, but when talking about this it only makes sense to accept it as true.  Roger Stone has been convicted of "obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering" in relation to trying to cover up his contacts with Wikileaks about info that according to the US came from Russian hackers. Maybe he genuinely didn't know or have any reason to believe in Russian interference at the time of this contacts, and maybe he genuinely still does not believe Russia was involved. But the fact remains, he tried to cover up something which from the US government's POV was part of the Russian interference. And that was after he was aware that the US government believed in their interference. So he was effectively and knowingly attempting to make it more difficult for them to investigate the interference, even he rejected that view.  Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

POTUS isn't considered to be above the law. There is a Department of Justice policy against indicting a sitting president but that is not mandated by statute afaik. If there is sufficient evidence that the POTUS committed crimes, he or she is supposed to be impeached, removed from office, and then prosecuted, per the DOJ policy. But ever since the Nixon pardon there has been no appetite for anything like that. The Clinton impeachment in the 1990s and the current Trump "inquiry" were/are both mere Kabuki dance. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't see that the original question has been answered. Is what Trump and his affiliates are accused of, a crime in US law? Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer is that we cannot answer this conclusively because no one has yet been brought up on charges (that we are aware of) let alone convicted. There are a bunch of possible crimes which have been mentioned above, which may [//www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-15/giuliani-faces-u-s-probe-on-campaign-finance-lobbying-breaches] [//www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-investigation.html] or may not be already under investigation. But as with a lot of complicated areas of law, it's difficult to reach any reliable conclusions without a conviction. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Impeachment can occur due to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The specific issue in this one is bribery (or perhaps extortion would be the better term), and he would be booted from office if convicted. In the unlikely event that happens, then it's up to the legal system to decide what, if anything, to do with him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also obstruction of justice, which would fit under the "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" part of the clause. The Mueller report, AND Mueller in his testimony, refused to clear Trump of the possibility of being charged with that.  The responsibility of filing that charge was outside of his purview, but he clearly indicated the evidence did not clear Trump of such a charge.  -- Jayron 32 12:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree, on the last point remember while the above discussion largely concerned the Russian stuff including the Mueller report, the OP's question as I understand it only relates to the Ukraine stuff. Trump could have committed obstruction of justice there, but the Mueller report isn't going to provide much evidence except for how things may operate. Nil Einne (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed it closely but I haven't heard anyone in a position of responsibility clearly allege that Trump committed a crime ("clear" = phrased like an indictment, more or less). There is perhaps reasonable suspicion that he did, and there is an investigation "inquiry" going on to collect evidence.  Some of this evidence seems valid and some seems bogus.  Either way it's likely that there will be a Senate trial.  If there is a trial, Trump will be acquitted unless something absolutely amazing turns up between now and then. I think there have been 5 or 6 impeachment proceedings in history that got as far as the current one.  Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were acquitted by the Senate; Nixon resigned from office before a trial got started, and a few others didn't reach trial.  In every case, the opposition party supposedly got control of the WH in the next election, so that is probably what the Dems are hoping this time.  But, Clinton's impeachment (which was in his 2nd term) actually increased his popularity, and he later said that if he had been allowed to run for a 3rd term, he would have done so.  I can't even say Clinton's impeachment helped Bush 43.  Gore was a terrible candidate.  So, Trump's impeachment may actually help him get re-elected.  We'll see. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)