Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< November 6 << Oct | November | Dec >> Current desk >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


November 7[edit]

Does Wikisource feel like Wikistalgia??[edit]

This discussion of feelings about a neologism is terminated. DroneB (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before you post in this section, please make sure you know all about Wikisource. It is a library of many old works. I know very well that the reason only old works are generally allowed in Wikisource is because of copyright, but regardless of this it often feels like Wikistalgia (Wiki + (no)stalgia.) Does it feel like this way to you?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This desk is not the correct venue for this discussion. Our purpose here is not to discuss our feelings. Please start this discussion in another location instead.--Jayron32 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put this question at this desk because I view it as related to the subject of humanities; specifically the human creation of wiki software. Georgia guy (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what you view it as, we don't answer requests for people's feelings. We provide references to questions. There's a lot of other places on the great wide internet to ask your question at. This tiny corner of the internet is not it. Try somewhere else.--Jayron32 23:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for "we provide references to questions", I think it's a big surprise that Wikipedia has no reference to this question anywhere in its main namespace. Georgia guy (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, because it isn't a request for references, it's a request to discuss our feelings. Which is not what we do here. There is no meaningful way to deal with your question here. Ask it somewhere else. --Jayron32 23:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the subject of people's feelings, Wikipedia's articles do have many references to people's feelings; these occur primarily in sections with labels like "Criticism" or "Reviews". These sections do have information that depends on how people feel about the article's subject; an example is a film article can say things like "Rotten Tomatoes gave the film an A minus". This statement describes the quality of something based on people's feelings, right?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't ask for reviews of Wikisource. You asked "does it feel that way to you". There are no published sources containing my feelings on this matter for me to refer you to.--Jayron32 00:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews on things are commonly based on how people feel about them. Georgia guy (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nation which currently has the same territory/borders for longest period[edit]

What is the nation in the world that has had exactly (or almost exactly, give or take a few m2) the same territory and borders for the longest period up till now, and since what year does it exist in that form? (just full-blown sovereign nations: not microstates, city states, constituent countries, principalities, etc.) thank you Ecolchester (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for where to look: single island nations, since those typically don't have the opportunity or risk of gaining or losing territory to land neighbors (there are, of course, a few exceptions, like Hispaniola, Cyprus and New Guinea). Of those, Japan can be excluded, since it lost some territory in WW2. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Japan only incorporated its second-largest island, Hokkaido, in the second half of the 19th century. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.237 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do island states count? Otherwise I would suspect Switzerland is in the running. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article: Switzerland's borders have not changed, except for some minor adjustments, since the 1815 Congress of Vienna. So, that's the date to beat, but I wouldn't think that would be hard to do. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can beat that by centuries. See Andorra, whose borders with France and Spain have not changed since 1278. List of land borders with dates of establishment mentions it briefly, but this map here discusses it as well. See also Paréage of Andorra 1278 which established the territory in its modern form. --Jayron32 16:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification, would it count if the same borders now in place for the modern nation were also in place back when it was a colony, or would you only count it since full independence ? How about if the form of government changes, does that "reset the clock" ? SinisterLefty (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These clarifications don't matter unless your proposed country can beat 1278. See above. --Jayron32 16:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andorra is both a principality and a microstate, and hence excluded by the OP. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I missed that. You are quite right. Carry on. --Jayron32 16:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why exclude microstates? San Marino has had its current borders since 1463. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Microstates can still qualify as "full-blown sovereign nations". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we only count the mainland portion of Portugal, its border with (what would later become) Spain was established in 1297 with the Treaty of Alcañices. Other than minor disputes over a few small villages (see Couto Misto and Olivenza), that border has remained unchanged since then. If we count the insular portions of Portugal, the Azores and Madeira were settled in the early-to-mid 1400s. --Jayron32 17:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That border disappeared in 1580 but reappeared again in 1640 in the same place it used to be. I'd say it only counts as unchanged since then. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. It didn't disappear. Portugal and Spain remained independent nations with independent governments, laws, and institutions through the whole period of the Iberian Union; they just shared a monarch. It was analogous to Scotland and England between 1603 - 1707 or between the various Commonwealth nations with Elizabeth II today. As noted in the article you linked "The governments, institutions, and legal traditions of each kingdom remained independent of each other." --Jayron32 17:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But do we include colonial territory as part of the colonizing nation? If so, then there was a significant period of time when “Portugal” included large chunks of South America. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True. There was a time period when the capital of Portugal was in South America from 1808-1821. --Jayron32 17:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit like saying that the Netherlands were governed from Canada during WWII (see Princess Margriet of the Netherlands#Birth and Canada). The court decamped, but this was temporary by intention and did the capital itself relocate? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same, no. Canada was another nation entirely, while Brazil was a colony of Portugal. So, they changed Brazil from a colony to part of Portugal proper, for the duration of this period. It would be more like if the US had moved the capital to Hawaii, back when Hawaii was a territory, then made Hawaii into a state, at that time. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be making the expatriate Court the nation, or at least, the nation's administration. But the dual kingdom arrangement was voided by The General and Extraordinary Cortes of the Portuguese Nation in 1820, and the King had to comply in order to return from his exile. In any event he followed suit. --Askedonty (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, in the case of Portugal/Brazil, what is most interesting is that the Heir Apparent of Portugal at the time, Dom Pedro, ultimately decided to give up his claims to Portugal and instead became Emperor of Brazil. Maybe Rio was a nicer place to live than Lisbon after all. --Jayron32 16:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can rule out the whole of America and Africa, too much change here. Except, maybe, Ethiopia and Egypt (but this will depend on your definition of a Nation)
Too much change in Europe, too. Even Sweden and Switzerland, with one of the the less bumpy history of the land, did change somewhat.
In Asia, I see 3 very solid contenders : Persia/Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia. We can rule out India, China, Japan, Korea, Siam/Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam etc.
You could add Sri Lanka, up to you to count it as microstate or not; also, I am not that sure it was really united so long ago; Madagascar wasn't, AFAIK
All in all, my bet would be Iran Gem fr (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... And I would be wrong. More change here than I thought. Qajar Iran. Let's check Mongolia... not good either. Gem fr (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ethiopia seems to have solidified sometime after Abyssinian–Adal war, before 1632 History_of_Ethiopia#Gondarine_Period, if I understand well Gem fr (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But some of it seems to have changed somewhat alongside Egypt : [1]
Back to Switzerland/1815, then? Gem fr (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Ethiopia, the borders/territory significantly changed following the 1993 Eritrean independence referendum. So its current territory isn't all that old. --Jayron32 15:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How did Sweden get ruled out?—eric 02:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, under the impression that some other country could be found before the Napoleonic era Gem fr (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden lost Finland around 1809. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But 1809 < 1815, so doesn't that put Sweden in the lead? --Amble (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on your view on Union between Sweden and Norway. If you think they are separated enough, then Sweden seems to be the winner, AFAICT, because Norway separated from Denmark in 1814... Unless you view Norway to be significantly separated from Denmark already, in which case Norway wins, with borders the same (it seems to me, please check) since Treaty of Copenhagen (1660). Gem fr (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on that: List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation --Amble (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, this article is named "by date", and use the STUPIDEST DATE FORMAT EVER, month/day/year, for a sortable table. Who want April before February before November, irrespective of the year? Should be year/month/day for effective sorting. I wish I knew how to do that Gem fr (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, it's even worse than that. Go to the "Sortable List" and sort by "First aquisition of sovereignty" (newest to oldest). After the n/a Palestine, you get Albania (Nov 28, 1912), Iraq (c.2300 BCE), Burundi (c.1680), and Benin (c.1600 CE). The circas and BC/BCEseem to be really confusing it actually its the complete inconsistency in how the dates are formatted (some plain text, some using the dts template).I may have a go at fixing it, but it looks like a lot of work, and has apparently been a known but untouched problem for years. Iapetus (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Too small, and part of Denmark until 1918 Gem fr (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, I'll vote Switzerland / 1815. The shenanigans in Scandinavia make it to complicated (for me) to accept Sweden / 1809. The rest of the world underwent too much change Gem fr (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(pedantry alert) Note that the Swiss borders haven't seen any major changes since 1815, but there were a number of boundary corrections and adjustments negotiated with Switzerland's neighbours, usually for practical reasons. The largest swap of similarly-sized areas (about 7.5km2) I found was settled in the Treaty of Dappes in 1862. Some more, including 20th century corrections, are listed in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland's article on borders (linked to German language version, French and Italian translations can be read there as well, but unfortunately no English version). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, SinisterLefty, only now did I see you had mentioned "except for some minor adjustments" earlier on. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]
The Swiss border might have changed most recently in 1960 when some territory was exchanged between France and Switzerland to enable the extension of Geneva airport. (Of interest to nobody but myself, I took off from it this afternoon.) This does not seem to be mentioned in the 'Historical Dictionary of Switzerland'. I've been trying to find the location and size of the swap for years with no luck. I think I've deduced roughly which chunk of land was transferred from France to Switzerland but can't guess at the corresponding chunk transferred to France. Hayttom (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This file of the Association des Riverains de l'aéroport de Genève (ARAG) has some maps and more info on that échange. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've not read every word, so maybe this is ineligible, but according to England–Wales border, "The England–Wales border ... has followed broadly the same line since the 8th century" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Wales, as part of the UK, qualifies as a "full-blown sovereign nation". SinisterLefty (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TOTW.—eric 22:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phone call between Trump and the Ukraine president[edit]

This is a question about the "infamous" phone call between Trump and the Ukraine president. The phone call that supposedly started all this impeachment talk. So, am I correct to assume that the phone call is not actually tape-recorded? If so, why is that the case? And is that the case for all (USA) presidential phone calls? Or just some subset of his phone calls (i.e., phone calls between presidents of different nations)? Now, there is some transcript made. And I think I heard that there are many, many people listening to the call (i.e., other officials, plus the transcribers who create the transcript, etc.). So, what's the point of having so many people listen in on these calls, and, further, then go about to transcribe it? How is this different than an actual audio-tape? I am trying to understand the reasoning behind all this rigmarole. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents have generally avoided this since the Nixon tapes. Both Nixon and prior presidents who recorded themselves did not do this with the intention of creating a ver batim record, except for certain important moments or things already public, such as press conferences. Rather, the tapes were intended for personal use. Non-exact transcripts and memos might be considered safer. See also this article in The Atlantic and the research it links to. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some other information.[2] Basically the same point as the above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will review those links. Thanks. @Someguy1221: ... you stated above that Non-exact transcripts and memos might be considered safer. Isn't the whole point of transcription that it be accurate, exact, etc.? What's the point of transcribing, if we don't want it to be accurate, exact, etc.? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The inexact transcription can be a useful aide-memoire to the conversation participants, while being less incriminating than a recording when the inevitable trial comes about. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I guess that makes sense. So, from a practical perspective ... what is the "job" of the transcriber? To do a "half-baked job" ... and to "screw up" a few sentences here and there? To start out with a 100% accurate transcript ... and then whittle it down to 75% or 80% accuracy? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the call is not recorded there can't be a really verbatim transcript. The person takes notes during the call and presumably tries to do a good job, but there is always some room for doubt. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't know much about this, but having read the links above (found them from my own research before noticing them) and also [3] [4] [5], it seems clear the intent is mostly to produce as close as possible to a verbatim transcript as the resources allow.

There is some suggestion that mistakes and language use by foreign leaders may be modified to make them sound more "stately", I'd note that if the other party was speaking via an interpreter it gets complicated anyway. There's even some suggestion this may have applied to the president himself at least during the Trump presidency. But the general belief is that even now, their intention is accurately convey, and not to hide or colour, the actual message just because it's controversial or potentially embarrassing, but they're limited in that goal by how they're working.

It may seem a little weird that they go through so much of an effort to produce an accurate transcript of what was said, given these are I assume is subject to the same risks of subpoena etc as the Nixon tapes (and nowadays also subject to the Presidential Records Act). But it seems clear from the sources this is a process somewhat disconnected from the president, which while they could shut down, is likely to result in extreme push-back. Maybe more importantly, where there's room for doubt, there's room for argument. (IIRC the OP is a lawyer, so probably knows this even better than us.) And frankly even if there is something which everyone accepts is an accurate verbatim transcript, the power of actually listening to a record of their words is still likely to be far greater. I would add that in the era before digital technology, managing and controlling all these notes was likely far simpler than with tapes. (One of the sources also mentions that the national security adviser doesn't always ask for a "verbatim transcript", although I assume this is when it's felt there's no reason to.)

The Washington Post source also mentions an interesting thing, it seems during the Obama presidency voice recognition software was used to help but this involved someone re-speaking what was said. This could actually significantly improve the accuracy if done properly, but this source, if you put aside the IMO unnecessary bluster, [6] quotes the same person who mentioned it in the Washington Post, suggesting it was done in that way mostly because the White House legal counsel would not allow it given it would meant at least a temporary recording of the phone call. Which sort of demonstrates how no president wants a recording even while they're trying to ensure an accurate transcript will be produced. (While this may arise for legal reasons i.e. if your software is effectively a recording, you may feel you need to preserve it to obey the law; ultimately I'm fairly sure it wouldn't be that hard for the White House to get software which would make a permanent recording and to put in place the necessary security systems to protect and preserve it. So the logical implication is you don't want that.)

Nil Einne (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that I was picturing them (the transcribers) listening in on the call while using shorthand, transcribing word for word. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources does suggest short hand is used and they try to get down as much as possible. That doesn't mean it's going to be completely accurate. I'm fairly sure they aren't allow to tell either party to slow down or repeat what they said because they missed it. The sources also mention stuff line noise etc that they have to deal with. And while I'm while they have a fair amount of training and experience in doing this sort of work, given who they are I (with security clearances etc), I'm not sure that transcribing conversations is the only thing they ever do. I imagine maybe you're comparing to Court reporter or similar, but while I guess you know more than me, my understanding is we're talking about someone who trains 2-4 years to do only that, who is listening directly to what's being spoken, who is I think allowed to say if they didn't quite catch something although I assume most of the time the judge will tell the witness (or whoever) to speak up or to stop mumbling or to slow down or whatever, since them and the jury if there is one probably isn't catching it either. I'm fairly sure the way most people speak over the phone is different to the way they address an audience too. So they're not really comparable. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention 'selection' as well as training. (While again there must be some of this for the officials, the conditions are quite different.) More importantly, looking at sources like [7], I also wonder whether real time court transcripts shouldn't really be treated as verbatim transcripts anyway. Frankly reading that and just thinking about it, if I was a lawyer or defendant, I'd probably demand there is always an audio backup [8], although it probably doesn't help much if I don't have someone to review it except in cases where I know precisely what is being disputed. (Not that audio recordings are perfect either, there are plenty of examples where precisely what someone said is disputed or even just plain inaudible.) BTW, I guess what happened in the Obama presidency with the voice recognition has similarities with Voice writing, but again the conditions, reasons, people involved and their training and experience, and possibly even technology used seem to be different. Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of moving too fast, they can also just be mumbling or otherwise hard to understand. "Unintelligible" appears a lot in these transcripts. Regarding court transcripts generally, it depends on the jurisdiction, but it is accepted that this may be the case, and the accuracy of a transcript may be challenged before a court. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is getting somewhat off-topic from the original question so I'll make it small.

To be fair, reading and thinking about it more, I probably seriously overestimated how few problems court reporters face too although the conditions are still fairly different. (Maybe not always in a favourable way, e.g. court reporters are likely to have far more different people speaking.) I suspect one factor is that for a variety of reasons lawyer and judges don't actually worry so much about situations where it's not clear if either the judge or jury is fully able to taken on board what is being said as I'm imagining.

I recall reading before that obtaining a court transcript is often a lengthy process as it requires a lot of work on the rough draft [9] or whatever. Largely an aside and I know some courts only have audio records initially, but in cases where real time live transcribing is done, I'm having trouble finding out how often in the modern era there is no audio backup. But it sounds like most of the work is proofreading of the transcript and similar [10] [11] and not checking if someone actually said “He don’t be in that neighborhood.” when it was transcribed as “We going to be in this neighborhood.” (Although I don't expect significant checking anyway. The main advantage of an audio recording would be it makes it easier to dispute what was said, although witness etc could be asked if they are alive and remember.)

It seems like I'm mistaken about how important transcripts are, I thought it might be common for juries to review them. But it seems like in a lot of US courts this often isn't the case. And further the jury may be reminded that their memory of any testimony takes precedence over the transcript, touching on the accuracy issue [12] [13] [14]. This probably answers my question whether rich defendants always produce their own transcripts, or have the official transcript checked for accuracy? I guess some may, but I assume many don't bother unless it's needed e.g. for an appeal or the jury does ask for it?

I did find this source, which found court reporters producing a live transcript were actually more accurate than people transcribing from audio [15]. Still as I said before, the big advantage with audio, especially in the case of an extremely disputed phone call, is anyone can listen to it and if there is dispute over what was said, this will be well reflected in reports arising from it. And getting back to the heart of the issue, sometimes there can be no dispute, unlike with a transcript however it was produced. Maybe also of interest is this [16] which discusses the use of audio recordings and transcripts of them, as evidence.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, the story of the memory being preferred. It was a different state from the situation you cite, but the only time I served jury duty (in a murder trial, for what it's worth), I believe the judge stated that a transcript could be provided of specific testimony if requested during deliberations. I think he may have mentioned the possibility of jurors disagreeing about what was stated, and that the transcript should be assumed definitive. I also found in the US Criminal Code (28 USC § 753), applicable to Federal Court, The transcript in any case certified by the reporter or other individual designated to produce the record shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of the testimony taken and proceedings had. There are a couple of vague laws about correction of errors in the record, and the federal process seems to be left for the courts to establish, so far as I can tell. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mother worked as a typist for a court reporter in the 1980s. In the courtroom, the reporter used a device with a Chorded keyboard, which printed the transcript out in a rather cryptic form (incomprehensible to people who weren't court reporters). Later on, the court reporter read aloud from those transcripts, and handed audiotapes of this reading aloud to my mother, who typed up what she heard on the audiotapes in a nice readable way... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See plausible deniability. It's difficult to deny they said something if there's a voice recording (although it's getting easier to fake those these days). Claiming a transcript is in error is easier. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is in this photo?[edit]

Thanks. A tangential / side question: In this link (What happens when POTUS calls a foreign leader?), who is the guy in the photo on the right, opposite the Trump photo? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Scaramucci ? SinisterLefty (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not Scaramucci. I was assuming it was some President of some other country (?) ... given the title of the article. Which is "What happens when POTUS calls a foreign leader?". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if it wasn't Volodymyr Zelensky. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They might either have made a mistake and included the wrong pic, or just put up any picture they had rights to, to be "representative" of a foreign leader. The lack of a caption makes me suspect the latter. SinisterLefty (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it may be Enrique Peña Nieto to me, which also makes sense. I don't see any reason why it would be a mistake, if they did do so. Likewise, it doesn't make sense that it would be Volodymyr Zelensky. The article is not directly dated but explicitly refers to "The Washington Post has published the full transcripts of two contentious January phone calls between President Donald Trump and the leaders of Australia and Mexico" which as per the link it also provides [17] happened in August 2017, which also includes a side on view of Peña Nieto you can compare to. In fact, the article does include a date of 5 August 2017 in the HTML. AFAIK, at the time, Volodymyr Zelensky was mostly known as a comedian, and while the did play a president, I'm not sure if it would make sense for VOA to include a picture of him. I guess the VOA could have updated this story after it got renewed interest recently, but there's really no reason for them to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the image you see on the page may be somewhat cut off. This is the full version of the image [18]. Looking at it more carefully, the hair does look a bit different although maybe it's older or something. I'm not very good as comparing faces and even worse from the side, but it's definitely not Malcolm Turnbull. I can't find any versions of this photo elsewhere from a reverse image search even cropping out Trump which surprised me a bit if it is Peña Nieto, however there are probably many many thousands if not even millions of stock photos of Peña Nieto, and I assume one from a side profile isn't so commonly used. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well, it's definitely not Volodymyr Zelensky ... nor Anthony Scaramucci. Yes, it might be Enrique Peña Nieto ... for me, it's hard to tell, in comparing other photos of Enrique Peña Nieto. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2019_November_7&oldid=926246916"