Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 May 7

= May 7 =

Soviet fuel tank
Is it possible to identify the aircraft to which this Soviet or post-Soviet Russian fuel tank (possibly a drop tank) belonged? Brandmeistertalk  11:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of the images of Soviet drop tanks I could find either had no fins or a single pair of fins. I found this model of a Soviet napalm bomb which has similar fins, but the body is different. So no answer yet, except to say that the Soviets were very hot on interchangeability, so that bits designed for one aircraft could be used on any other, an advantage of having all your factories owned by the same people. Alansplodge (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I found that the T-1 and TS-1 jet fuel mentioned on the tank means it came from a subsonic aircraft. The GOST 10227-62 label suggests a timeframe between 1970 and 1987 (when it was superseded by another GOST standard). Will have another walk around the tank for other clues. Brandmeistertalk  16:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if it is the same type, but Soviet/Russian SU-34 used a centerline external fuel tank with four fins, similar in design to this one. See Here for example.  Maybe other planes from the same family.  -- Jayron 32 19:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The cylindrically straight middle part of the fuel tank in the twitter image is much longer relative to its width, at least 6 to 1 compared to the at most 3 to 1 we see here; also, the tail edge of its tail fins is curved, whereas the one we have here has straight edges. --Lambiam 11:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Two more photos from other sides. It also has a nose fin, the red mark on the 2nd photo is a place for tank support (attachment). Brandmeistertalk  16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The German Wikipedia calls it a Bombe instead of a fuel tank. This is clearly wrong; the yellow triangle with T-1 / TS-1 says керосин, which means kerosene. --Lambiam 18:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, please disregard my comments about napalm. I really should learn Russian :-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The error has since been corrected. --Lambiam 11:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Crimes / sexual assaults on college campuses
In the USA, we hear a lot about crimes -- in particular, sexual assaults -- on college campuses. The issue has been brought even more into the light recently, due to Joe Biden's past work on related legislation (or executive orders, or whatever). In college sexual assault allegations, we typically have a "he-said / she-said" scenario. So, there are (usually) two main concerns. One, the rape victim is not getting "heard" and is often "pooh-poohed" (and not supported) by the College. The College administrators just want the situation to go away, and to be brushed under the carpet ... to protect the school reputation, etc. (This was why they instituted all the new rules, I imagine.) Second, there is (parallel) concern that the accused rapists do not get enough rights, and that they are expelled / shamed / identified / etc. based on the flimsiest of allegations (that might be totally false). OK. I get all that. This is the part I never quite understood. (And never gave any thought to, until now.)  When these "crimes" or "alleged crimes" occur, why are the local police not involved? The allegations seem to be handled (controversially) internally, by the College itself. The "real" police (city/municipal/etc.) do not seem to be a part of the equation. Or am I misunderstanding? Do the "college police" somehow "trump" the jurisdiction of the local/city police? None of it makes any sense. If there were a murder on campus, I assume that the "real" police get involved. No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a complex situation that one has to draw distinctions between can they and do they. Can non-University based authorities such as city and county and state police, district attorneys, and the actual criminal justice system be used in such cases?  Usually, they are under the authority to do so.  Do they, in practice?  Usually not.  Sadly, there's a history of many campus crimes such as petty theft and simple assault being deferred to campus authorities rather than local police (like, if two people get in a fight in a dorm room or if someone swipes a bookbag out of a classroom).  The problem is that rape and sexual assault are historically classified as "petty" under these systems, and there's a LOT of historical inertia towards changing these attitudes.  The question is not one of statutory authority, it's a question of the will to act on the statutory authority, and most jurisdictions simply don't rather than couldn't.  There's a lot of good articles here that explain the issues.  The first article listed there has the following passage "Unlike other police departments, campus police departments have to be sensitive to the needs and the wants of the staff, students and student’s parents. This sometimes can be a challenge wearing the different hats of being a sworn police officer, campus ambassador and a campus protector. In most cities, and large counties you focus more on the enforcement of the laws and responding to a number of law enforcement calls for service."  The issue is twofold, as noted there, city and county police forces have enough to investigate anyways, and are often grateful to the campus authorities for lightening the workload, while campus police have divided loyalties and are often dependent on representing the "interests of the campus community" writ large, which can often mean sweeping these things under the rug.  -- Jayron 32 18:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a comprehensive and well-reasoned response. I have not yet read the links you provided, but I plan to do so.  For the moment, I did have some additional questions emerge in my mind, after I read your post.  (Question 1)  If you are the female rape victim, and you feel that the College is "pooh-poohing" you ... can't you go to the "real police" and demand that they get involved?  For the female rape victims who feel that the College justice system is a sham ... why don't they go to the "real police" and demand some better action?  I assume that they can do so.  Wouldn't the "real police" have a hard time saying "no" to an insistent accuser?  I mean, they can't just say: well, you know, historically, there has been a lot of inertia, etc., etc., etc., so we are not going to get involved in this mess (a response similar to what you indicated above in your posting).  I mean, can the "real police" -- in practical terms -- say and do that?  I assume, no.  Imagine if they gave such a response for, say, a murder.  Also (Question 2) ... how and why do colleges have this "special" arrangement?  (You cited two kids fighting in a dorm, or a backpack that gets stolen from a classroom.)  We can pick some other institution -- say, fast-food restaurants ... or, art galleries ... or whatever -- and apply these "special rules" there, too.  No?  How did colleges come about to get this special status?  Is it because they operate their own "police departments"?  And -- by the way -- are they "real police"?  Or are they just security-guard types?  (The College law enforcement officers, that is).   (Question 3)  Is there an arrangement in boarding schools -- where young children live in the school dorms -- similar to the College / University system?  Or are those boarding schools for younger-age children more similar to any other "normal" non-College establishment, which relies on the local / "real" police?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Not an answer to the question, but perhaps still relevant, is the fact that only a small percentage of rape victims decide to report their rape (see Effects and aftermath of rape), not only out of shame, or because they expect not to be taken seriously, but because of the relentless efforts to dig up dirt on the victim and paint them as immoral low-lives and the grueling cross examination by the defense team to be expected if it comes to a court case. That is unfortunate for two reasons. First, although unintended, it tends to enable rapists to become repeat offenders. Secondly, when the claim surfaces much later, potential witnesses may not remember the events and most traces of corroborating evidence will have disappeared. Even if a rape victim chooses not to report their rape at the time, they would do well to record the events as soon as possible, for instance in their diary, and inform trusted friends immediately. --Lambiam 11:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just on answering Question 2) as in "why are college campuses treated differently than businesses", because in many ways college campuses are unlike businesses. They are more like a city than a business in the sense that they are often a self-contained community; indeed many residential college campuses are MORE self-contained than a typical city (even when they are also adjacent to or even part of an actual city) in that students and faculty often live on the campus itself, or in extremely close proximity, and one's entire life is centered on the campus.  As a self-contained community, and not just a "fast food restaurant" or a "art gallery" that you might visit once in a while, a college campus is a mostly independent and self-contained community.  As such, having the sorts of services like police and health provided by the College itself is not all bad.  The description above might make it sound nefarious and evil, but there are lots of good reasons why a campus police department, which deals with and understands the community they are serving, might be better than bringing in outside, anonymous and unconnected law enforcement.  Indeed, even outside of college campuses, there is considerable evidence that community policing (with a focus on members of the law enforcement community socially integrated in the community they serve) has significant social and safety benefits.  The whole "covering up rape" angle is NOT a design feature of these sorts of community-based policing models you find in campus-based public safety (and indeed, it's a pervasive problem across ALL communities in America, not just college campuses), but rather a problem that needs to be dealt with on its own, without eliminating all of the good that comes from having a responsive and connected law-enforcement community.  Regarding question 3) Policing in schools for lower grades, even in run-of-the-mill public schools, creates its own challenges.  There's a whole other conversation we can have over the criminalizing of underage student behavior and the difference between restorative models of student discipline vs. criminal models of student discipline, the unequal way in which students of different backgrounds are policed and in which policies are enforced, the school-to-prison pipeline that some models of school discipline can create.  That's a whole other can of worms.  --13:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Your post made me think of two more questions.  One: is there any distinction between a residential campus and a non-residential (commuter) campus?  I see what you are saying about a college being a "self-contained" community.  But, that's not really the case when you have a non-residential / commuter school.  Right?  In that case, it is more "like a business" ... people come in; do their thing; and leave. (Just like a business.)   They don't really "live" there; in fact, they don't live there at all.   Also, Two: I just thought of this.  In one scenario, a male college student (allegedly) rapes a female college student.  In another scenario, some criminal rapist scum-bag (who has nothing at all to do with the College) trespasses onto the campus and rapes a student.  In the second scenario, I assume local police get involved and do not leave it to campus police?  Or am I wrong?   Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The college student is still a criminal rapist scumbag. He didn't stop being so because he was enrolled at school.  Secondly, community colleges and other commuter-based schools are far less likely to have community functions.  There may be campus security much as a shopping mall would have, but many of the community functions you'd find at a stereotypical 4-year residential campus aren't there, and similarly the infrastucture to support a community are not either.  -- Jayron 32 05:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was making the distinction between the alleged rapist being from on-campus versus off-campus. Is it all treated the same (i.e., the campus police take over the lead of the matter, regardless of who did the rape, since it happened on their campus grounds).   I assume campus police have jurisdiction over their own students.  Do they "really" have jurisdiction over non-students / visitors / trespassers?  I wonder.  I don't know much about campus security / law officers ... and how "real" or not they are as police.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Combining the chancellery and the presidency?
Hello, I was just having a little read of the lead section of Nazi Germany.


 * It says, "Hitler became dictator of Germany by merging the offices and powers of the Chancellery and Presidency,"

I had to stop at that point and go and read some of Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom because, much as the deputy PM page does not seem to say so clearly, it is something of a tradition in the UK for the chancellor to be the deputy prime minister, even living next door to them. Sometimes if there is a coalition government the position has been given to the smaller party and done separately, but otherwise, almost always, it is part of the office of the prime minister, i.e., the defacto president given that the head of state of the UK, the royalty, is apolitical and advisory in their role. So, my opinion is, if combining the offices of chancellery and presidency is what makes a dictator... Boris Johnson must be a dictator...

Is there some sort of academic basis to this particular point? Should it be worded slightly differently? Is it fair for me to believe that Prime Minister/Deputy Prime Minister are aspects of the same body/office? ~ R.T.G 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Other than using the same word, the office of German Chancellor is not comparable to the UK office of Chancellor. In Germany, it is the equivalent to the office of Prime Minister.  The German President has no analogue in the UK other than perhaps the Queen, since the UK does not have a non-Royal chief executive.  The best analogue for the Chancellor and Presidency merging here would be if Boris Johnson got the parliament to declare him King.  But really, even that breaks down.  Not every country organizes its government in similar ways, and there's really not any equivalent UK "merger of offices" that would correspond to Hitler's move to merge those two offices.  If you really wanted to have the equivalent to the Deputy PM in Germany, it would be Vice-Chancellor of Germany.  Prior to Hitler's rise to power, it would have been known as the Vizekanzler. -- Jayron 32 19:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah okay, yes Merkel is the chancellor isn't she, thanks Jayron. ~ R.T.G 19:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, the current President of Germany is Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who has no equivalent in the UK. Also, as an aside, there is no single "Chancellor" in the UK.  There are three different government offices with that word in them, Lord Chancellor, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Chancellor of the High Court.  None of them is currently, or even normally, the Deputy Prime Minister, which is an irregular office created by some Prime Ministers.  -- Jayron 32 19:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To put it at a basic level, Hitler took all the constitutional checks and balances into his own hands and then did away with them. Alansplodge (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute... but the chancellor must be the deputy PM... Oh I see now... they just don't use that title. Wow, I've believed in that for so long. They do tend to be defacto the deputy PM. It must be from being Irish... every minister is called "deputy" minister over here. So I am going to blame the politicians for my stupidity. It's part of their job these days to be blamed for everything, thanks for that o/ ~ R.T.G 04:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take a few minutes to read the relevent articles. Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is an irregular office created to be the "second in command" (for lack of a better term) in the UK.  Each PM organizes their cabinet as they see fit, and while certain roles are vital, others are up to the whim of the PM in question.  Some PM's name a First Secretary of State, for example, to be their main second-in-command.  Teresa May used the Minister for the Cabinet Office as her second-in-command.  It is broadly true that in modern times, the role of "second-in-command" would fall to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by default as the Second Lord of the Treasury, in practice this has happened only irregularly in the past several decades; Only Gordon Brown didn't have a Deputy PM or First Sec of State, and used his handpicked successor as Chancellor Alistair Darling, you'd have to go back 30+ years to find a time when the expectation was that the Chancellor was the second in charge, even then Willie Whitelaw was the functional second in command to Thatcher, even if that role fell de facto to the Chancellor.  -- Jayron 32 05:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes did in fact have a glance at it before making this reply. Brown was chancellor for a long time before, he defaulted to PM didn't he? Argh... not sure if I want to read through all these to check my facts. I am generally more interested in the policies themselves than who to blame for them. I suppose it can depend on the times which way is more relevant. ~ R.T.G 05:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Blair-Brown relationship was complex; the succession of Brown after Blair was basically forced to resign by his own party had supposedly been worked out years before in the Blair–Brown deal, which Blair had supposedly renegged on when he didn't resign after two years as planned, and stayed on for 10 instead. Also, Brown was not Blair's second... That would be John Prescott who was both Deputy PM and First Sec'y of State.  -- Jayron 32 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow I totally do not understand this niche of the politics. Well I understand it, but I've just taken it for granted to be straightforward for a long time. Bureaucracy. ~ R.T.G 05:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The British constitution is not very useful to compare with anything else, because none of it was planned, it just grew organically. When anything needs changing, we just add some more complexity to the tottering heap of underlying traditions. But it actually works rather well in it's weird and wonderful way. Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1934 German referendum effectively brought Germany under a presidential system in which the head of government was also the head of state. Since the Enabling Act of 1933 Hitler already held plenary power without any checks by the legislative branch; his also becoming the head of state was merely the last step to making his dictatorship absolute. --Lambiam 11:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try and reword it in line with the contemporary phrases, "...merging the offices of head of state (President) and head of government (Chancellor)..." which is probably the most informative way of doing it. It has been worded that way for seven years though so we will just have to see if other editors appreciate it. ~ R.T.G 04:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't forget "and powers". --Lambiam 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 reporting basis: deaths per million
We hear a lot of media reporting about the death toll in places like Italy, Spain, the UK, and the USA. That's understandable; every life is sacred, regardless of how populous their country is. Still, in terms of international comparisons, it's natural to expect that the greater the population, the higher the raw death toll might be. Where that's not the case, that tells us some countries are dealing with the virus better than others. That, or perhaps they're not exposed to it to the same degree that other countries are.

This table is very informative in this regard. It looks at deaths per million people, by country. The country doing worst of all is Belgium, with 730.8 deaths per million. Spain, Italy, and the UK come next; then France, Netherlands, Sweden, and Ireland, before we get to the USA (224 per million).

I've heard no reporting about Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, or Ireland. I haven't seen any media reporting about this metric at all; it's all focussed on raw numbers. Have I been missing it, or is there some other agenda? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any 'agenda' is probably the usual one, that the popular media tend to cover only what they think their viewers/readership is most interested in, and avoid where possible contradicting its fondly held views. In the case of TV news programmes, they are to an extent constrained by lack of time (and viewers' attention spans). Newspapers have less excuse, and I would have expected what used to be called "quality broadsheets", and perhaps weekly journals like The Economist to cover these matters at least somewhat better than the "red top" tabloids.
 * Regarding your root observation; the statistics will be complicated by the different counting measures used by different countries. I imagine also that population density is an important factor – the virus will surely tend (ignoring varying countermeasures) to spread more quickly through countries like Belgium (22nd most densely populated territory) and the UK (32nd densest) than in the USA (145th densest) despite the latter's larger absolute population. Raw density figures might however also mislead: Canada (nominally 187th densest) has a very large land area relative to its population, but much of that area is almost uninhabited, with more than 9/10ths (I believe) of the population living in a 100-mile deep strip along the Canada/USA border.
 * Finally (from me), the date at which the virus first began to spread also differs from place to place, so in two otherwise comparable countries, one where the spread began, say, a week later will have not seen as many deaths yet, because it seemingly takes at least a fortnight between infection and death or recovery, but further deaths will occur there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.81.243 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 2.219.81.243 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Total confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people, May 7, 2020 from Global Change Data Lab, a registered charity in England and Wales. The reported number per million per nation appears when you hover your mouse over that country. The US shows 221.84 deaths per million, UK is 443.04, Belgium is 719.52 which seems to be the highest rate. Note the caveat at the top of the map; there are different ways of reporting deaths, some countries only register confirmed deaths in hospital.  Alansplodge (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another complication presumably is that it takes time for the disease to spread, so in a small country like Belgium, the disease will cover the whole country rapidly, so it makes sense to examine cases and deaths as a % of the total population. But in a large country like the US, it will take much longer to spread throughout the country, so examining cases as a % of population isn't comparing like with like.  I'm wondering if it would make more sense to compare EU countries to US states, rather than the US as a whole?  Iapetus (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither comparison is perfect, since each EU country has a far smaller population than the US (the biggest EU country Germany has about 1/4 and Belgium about 1/30 the US population), but on average a far bigger one than the average US state (by a factor of about 3).
 * FWIW, New York state does have more inhabitants than Belgium and has about 1,100 deaths per million inhabitants currently, more than Belgium or any other country. --141.100.201.16 (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's nothing to be proud of, but thanks. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)