Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 June 10

= June 10 =

New problem
Look at the Daryl Bem article. (Today is his 85th birthday.) When I visit the article originally it always says he's 84. But after I edit the article simply by clicking edit and then publish (without doing any edits) it says he's 85. Have you had experience with similar events?? Georgia guy (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When you first looked you were probably seeing a cached version that might be a day or so old. After the "edit", the cache would be flushed.  I've looked just now and he's 85, so I'm probably seeing a "Georgia guy" version whereas you initially saw the "Carchasm" version of 31 May. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussed at Village pump (technical)/Archive 24. 2A00:23C3:FB81:A501:24FC:4B46:8DAC:E612 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Shah Jahan II
Because of the question about Jack Ruby (above), I was looking through the category for assassinated heads of state. This particular Mughal emperor is in several categories to do with having been murdered, but is it true? The article as it stands at the moment says that he died of tuberculosis. When the article was created it said he died of a possible cancer. The second edit changed this to assassination (deposed and killed by the Sayyid brothers). this edit in 2010 changed the cause of death back to lung cancer. From the start of 2013 to May 2015 the article said "Like his brother, he died of lung cancer or was murdered", but the article was then almost completely blanked by an IP editor, and remained that way until March 2019! At this point somebody restored the information that he had tuberculosis, and that he died, without making the connection explicit. But the article was still in categories "Murdered Indian monarchs" and "18th-century murdered monarchs"! Subsequently, it has acquired categories "1719 murders in Asia" and "18th-century murders in India", while the text has settled on "he died of tuberculosis".

Well, which is it? Card Zero (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * William Irvine argues against the accusations of poisoning, made by Muhammad Hadi Kamwar Khan? and others. fiveby(zero) 23:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm using that reference. I'm also using Advanced Study in the History of Modern India Vol 1, 1707–1813 as a reference for his tuberculosis. These were both in the article already, but in a vague way as general references and I think the latter was attributed to the wrong author.
 * OK I'm puzzled now: here's the book by G S Chhabra, and here's the same book by J L Mehta. They can't both have written it (well, they could have cowritten it, but nobody claims that). Also, here's Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India by J L Mehta. I don't know, I suspect a mix-up. Card Zero  (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the J L Mehta version (2005), with ISBN number. There is also a link attributing it a publishing date of 1971 but with  a pair of dead-end ISBN numbers (10: 0842603417, 13: 9780842603416). Searching the ISBN number associated with the 2005 version redirects sometimes to Chhabra versions - if I, or them haven't gotten lost along the way, that is. --Askedonty (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We should present all significant points of view, like, P has speculated that the cause of death was A,[123] Q suspects B[124] and R thinks it was C,[125], which however is disputed by S.[126] --Lambiam 05:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this is the opposite of being categorical, so I suppose I should remove it from the several murder categories. But I see Stanford White is categorized under American murder victims, despite his killer Harry Kendall Thaw being categorized under People acquitted of murder, so perhaps any allegation, unlawful killing, or suspicious death is sufficient for the placement in a murder category. Card Zero  (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thaw was found "not guilty by reason of insanity". This does not alter the fact that his killing of White was murder. --Lambiam 20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

What does legal 'liability' mean?
In the outcome of this SEC case, where a jury found the short-seller Lemelson was 'legally liable for securities fraud', specifically for lying about a company 'recklessly'; but he was not guilty of engaging in a short and distort scheme to defraud investors ie. he lied recklessly but not with the intention of defrauding investors with a short and distort "scheme". I'm confused, does this mean Lemelson is only responsible for liability (paying a fine?), or can we say unambiguously he was found guilty of fraud ie. a convicted fraudster? More info from Barrons, and CFO which says "Ruling only on issues of liability". What does that mean "only on issues of liability"? -- Green  C  21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would assume it means that there are no criminal charges, a.k.a. "slap on the wrist". If he puts the cookies back in the cookie jar, then no harm done.  136.54.99.98 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The key point to make in response to the question as worded (I think John M Baker buried the lede a little bit) is that "liability" is not limited to civil matters or even fines. Criminal liability can entail any punishment allowed by law, even death in jurisdictions that use it.
 * If a defendant in a civil lawsuit is found liable for a charge, it means that the charge will be held against them; they will have to answer for it and can expect remedies to be imposed on them. In this specific case, the defendant was found liable for one charge (intentionally or recklessly making untrue statements of a material fact ), but not for a stronger charge (intentionally or recklessly engaging in a scheme to defraud ). --Lambiam 11:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the judgement, which found Lemelson guilty on count 1, which concerns SEC Rule 10b-5, which is section (b) in SEC_Rule_10b-5. I assume this is fraud. -- Green  C  15:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Guilty and not guilty (and not proven, when available) are verdicts in criminal trials, where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". As Lambiam notes, liability is a civil issue, which has a somewhat lower standard of proof.  Look at O.J. Simpson's legal issues: he was found not guilty of killing the two people, but he was judged liable for their wrongful deaths.  Nyttend (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Liability" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary (the standard legal dictionary in the United States) as "[t]he quality, state, or condition of being legally obligated or accountable; legal responsibility to another or to society, enforceable by civil remedy or criminal punishment." So this means that the defendants were found to have committed wrong-doing and to be responsible for any legal remedies that the court might (and subsequently did) assess.  Rule 10b-5 - the single most important rule in the entire Code of Federal Regulations - is the general rule prohibiting fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of securities.  Since the defendants were found to have engaged in intentional fraud, that is considered a very serious matter, just as serious as the scheme liability charge that was rejected.
 * As noted by GreenC, Lemelson was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $160,000 and was enjoined from violating Rule 10b-5 for a five-year period. The order was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  But that is not the end of the matter.  The SEC's Division of Enforcement has brought an administrative proceeding seeking to bar Lemelson from the securities industry, and that proceeding remains pending.  John M Baker (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Now, in the particular SEC case, I haven't looked it up and don't know whether the "liability" being referred to is civil or criminal. But you can't assume the only consequences are financial simply because the word "liability" was used. --Trovatore (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The SEC can only bring civil cases; the government can bring criminal cases for willful violations of the securities laws, but those are brought by the Department of Justice (normally the U.S. Attorney for the relevant district), not the SEC. So it would be incorrect to refer to Lemelson as a convicted fraudster; "convicted" always means a criminal conviction.  Still, Lemelson remains at risk of losing his livelihood through being barred from the securities industry, so this is not a slap on the wrist or even a purely financial penalty.  John M Baker (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The jury rejected the allegation of "manipulative and deceptive practices" or "fraud" under [https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/securities-law/securities-and-exchange-act-rule-10b.html#:~:text=The%20Securities%20and%20Exchange%20Act%20of%201934%20created%20the%20SEC,deceptive%20practices%22%20in%20securities%20trading. Securities and Exchange Act Rule 10b]. The jury found only "misstatements," under subsection [| 10b-5, subsection (b)], a subsection of a subsection of 10b. The jury rejected subsections; (a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, and (c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. Parts (a) and (c), that deal with fraud, and the required [| elements] are necessary for a violation of the 10b statute. The sources cite the false press release. The jury also rejected two fraud claims under the [| Advisors Act], and five other allegedly fraudulent statements. The $2.3 million sought by regulators was reduced to just $160,000 with no disgorement of profits.--RomaTomatos (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Real-life Thermian argument
Is there a term for arguments that are like the so-called Thermian argument, but applied to things other than fiction? That is, justifying something within a surface-level ruleset without addressing the justifications for that ruleset. It seems like a weaker form of begging the question, in that the unsupported premise doesn't entirely presuppose the truth of the argument but merely lays some of the groundwork for it. Lazar Taxon (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Quantitative fallacy and definist fallacy are similar, as is the application of verisimilitude. 136.54.99.98 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * An example of a similar non-fiction argument is the Nuremberg defence, "I was just following orders". The Deific-decree defence and the closely-related Matrix defence may also apply, if we extend the concept of "surface-level ruleset" to the rules of a universe created by a psychotic mind. I don't know an umbrella term for this type of argument. In all these cases, fictional or non-fictional, the crux is that the rules are used as an argument to justify the rules (compare the saying rules are rules), which is a special form of petitio principii. --Lambiam 11:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)