Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 February 6

= February 6 =

Jellicoe's operation
In Churchill writes "After the action of the Dogger Bank, Sir John Jellicoe became seriously indisposed and had to undergo a minor, though trying, surgical operation on shore". What was the operation? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot read the full article, but the blurb in the google search for this article seems to say he had surgery for bladder stones. If you can get access to that article, it may have more information.  -- Jayron 32 15:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can read that article here. I've scanned through but can't find anything; however, Google assures me that it says "he ignored obvious signs of failing health, major surgery for bladder stones, high blood pressure, pulmonary problems and bad teeth..." somewhere in the text; BTW, the author is Andrew Lambert "a British naval historian".  Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Belay that. The bladder stones and bad teeth actually belonged to Sir Julian Corbett, see p. 14 of the above. The hunt continues... Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ....It is sad that Jellicoe has sciatica. Fisher to Churchill, 14 January
 * ...is not well, and is in consequence suffering from a temporary depression Fisher to Churchill, 20 January fn 2
 * Poor Jellicoe has had to have a slight operation and is out of it for 3 weeks. This is also secret. Churchill to French, 1 February
 * Hipper also
 * Ask at WP:RX for The Jellicoe Papers, Volume I, 1893-1916? Apparently it includes 100 pages of material on the 1914-1915 period. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, I had an idea in the back of my mind, and then I tried reading the extract above to my Dad and asking him what he thought. He said piles, which is what I had suspected, and then one swift google later I found . Piles it was. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sciatica must have been a code word, sorry about the wrong lead.&mdash;eric 16:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The charges against Jeffrey Epstein
I'm trying to understand the context of the charges pending against Jeffrey Epstein at the time when he supposedly killed himself. OK, according to our article, Judge Kenneth Marra was to decide whether the non-prosecution agreement that protected Epstein from the more serious charges should still stand. But it doesn't seem to say whether the judge ever ruled on this question, or whether Epstein's "get out of jail card" may yet have ultimately been ruled valid. Can anyone clarify this "chronology question"? Eliyohub (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Did the charges he was facing allege him engaging in acts of molestation which post dated his previous plea-bargain? Or were they charges involving alleged crimes which pre dated his previous case? (I'm asking about charges of him molesting and/or trafficking teens, NOT the child-pornography charges). Or, to put it another way, was it being alleged that he REoffended against actual children post-2008?
 * 2) If it was the latter (conduct which pre-dated his previous plea bargain), couldn't he have ultimately escaped the charges by claiming that they were implicitly included (and either "punished" or withdrawn) in the plea bargain? (If prosecutors could simply lay fresh charges for conduct which pre-dated an already "settled" plea-bargain, it would make plea bargain worthless, wouldn't it?)
 * The judge did rule the agreement should stand, after Epstein's death. [//www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/us/epstein-ruling-florida.html] [//edition.cnn.com/2019/09/16/us/jeffrey-epstein-florida-accusers-judge-ruling/index.html] Note that the request to throw our the agreement came from 2 victims, not from the federal government who still viewed it should stand [//www.npr.org/2019/06/25/735804464/jeffrey-epsteins-sex-offender-plea-deal-must-stand-federal-prosecutors-say] (This predated them filing new charges but I'm fairly sure they didn't change their mind. Admittedly it's complicated because there are different parts of the federal government as illustrated in the later sources. Still my impression is they never made the argument the agreement should be thrown out, rather they simply viewed it didn't apply to them.) The arguments for bringing the new prosecutions are discussed here [//edition.cnn.com/2019/07/09/us/jeffrey-epstein-nonprosecution-agreement/index.html] [//www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2019/07/09/jeffrey-epstein-prosecution-1402265] [//www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-indictment-hes-out-luck/593512/] [//www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/second-sex-crimes-case-against-jeffrey-epstein-shows-reach-of-federal-law/2019/07/08/edbb256a-a1bc-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html] [//apnews.com/9054a8384520479aa3c36454b00cdf06]. I'm fairly sure there have been no rulings on the specific broader issues raised, and it seems likely none will ever come. While it's probably not helpful for me to speculate, in terms of your 'plea bargain (sic) worthless' comment, I would note there is a reason why everyone recommends you have a good lawyer if you're going to negotiate such things. Okay one of the reasons is to limit any sentence but another, especially with complicated ones covering multiple possible crimes is what they cover is going to depend on the specifics. Otherwise someone could commit a minor crime, negotiate a plea bargain, and then confess to being a serial killer with 1000 victims and use their plea bargain as a get out of jail free card. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

number of seats of provincial governments Italy
Where can I find the info on number of seats in each provincial governments in Italy? Donmust90 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The article Consiglio regionale (Italia) on the Italian Wikipedia has a list. --Lambiam 15:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)