Humanities desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

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.

July 19[edit]

What are the best books about German logistics in World War II?[edit]

What are the best books about German logistics in World War II? I'm asking for a friend. Futurist110 (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it, but Logistics in World War II: 1939–1945 by John Norris has been published this year, although not specific to Germany. You might consider posting this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history; they're a helpful bunch. Alansplodge (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; will do! Futurist110 (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sky people who turned into arrows[edit]

In Hynek's book the Edge of Reality he talks about Sioux believing in people who came from the sky and then left (presumably when white man came) - "The Sioux, for instance, state that when the sky people left they changed themselves into arrows and went off into the sky." Hynek attributes this story to a "historian of Indian cultures" in Bottineau, ND. Who are these sky people? I can't find anything about them on Wikipedia or on the web, excepting Ancient Aliens-era nonsense. 93.136.3.127 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, [1] here is a reference that discusses the Sioux concept of a tripartite division of the cosmos, and the sky people who lived in the upper part. Start on page 42. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link says access denied 93.136.3.127 (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm I think I found it elsewhere [2] :-) 93.136.3.127 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"including the Scandinavian"[edit]

The book "Your Inner Self" by Louis K Bisch, published in New York in 1922, says on page 6:

Why single out the Scandinavian languages? Marnanel (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This podcast [3] claims to explain it. (I haven't listened through it yet, so can't say if it makes any sense.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Here is a clip from A Way with Words saying it had to do with Scandinavian countries not being part of international copyright law agreements between European countries and the US and Canada until quite a bit later. Apparently "including the Scandinavian" was part of the standard boilerplate in books published during this time. It was something people noticed at the time too. The clip then talks about "what happens when jargon leaves the place where it's most at home" (a caller had mentioned the humorous appearance of 'including the Scandinavian' in the movie Lifeboat). I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia yet. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Held without bail pending trial[edit]

Person X is arrested and denied bail based on reasonable arguments that she is a flight risk, ok fine. So she is locked up pending trial but presumptively not an actual criminal unless eventually convicted. Incarcerated convicts are (to put it succinctly) treated as criminals (denied communications, etc.) because they are criminals, at least legally speaking. While when someone is jailed pending trial, it's supposedly purely to make sure they don't hop on a speedboat and set out for wherever. So is there a reason they're not allowed to take their own cell phones into jail with them, order meals sent in, etc.? "Person X" here was inspired by person G recently in the news, but also a buddy of mine got arrested some years back and was also in jail for a while and couldn't make phone calls from there, despite not having been convicted. This doesn't seem so great. Anyone know if there has been controversy over this? Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:5B74 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, while you’re innocent until proven guilty, that you’re even going to stand trial means that there’s probable cause to believe you broke the law. So there’s that. As to why pretrial detention is a thing, and why it’s strict as it is, has to do both with securing appearances (this is very controversial currently, with many arguing that the bail business disproportionately affects minorities) and ensuring protection of the community. This latter point ties back into the probable cause issue; while you’re innocent until proved guilty, there’s probable cause to believe you can be proved guilty and therefore can be detained. The conditions of detention are the result of many issues, including maintaining order, the safety of COs and other detainees, the impossibility of protecting detainees’ personal property in a custodial situation (what happens when you get your cell phone and jewelry stolen?). While there is arguably a punitive effect of pretrial detention, I don’t believe it’s supposed to be a driving force. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretrial detention is inevitable, but how often and how long it's applied depends on the country. In many countries in Europe pretrial detention is time-limited. The prosecution has to request and judge approve extensions if the trial drags out longer than expected. The accused is also not sent to prison until he/she has been convicted in the highest court or did not appeal a conviction. If he/she is kept detained it's still considered and handled as pretrial detention. If there is a pretrial detention or extension of it, it has to be specifically justified as in flight risk, risk of harm, influencing witnesses etc. You see stories on the Internet of people in the USA being arrested "for running a red light" or drinking and driving. The justice system has to come up with a definite cause to put someone in jail (let alone prison) here. The negative consequence is that it can drag out a process. I know of a person who was accused of a crime, sentenced to 3 years and fought it all the way up the court system, but the original sentence was upheld by the last court and the person had to go to prison after spending 5 years fighting it (so 8 years in total, tho only the last 3 were spent behind bars). 93.136.3.127 (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the US all you need to do is make a speedy trial demand. But it's not typically in the accused's best interest to make his defense attorney hurry up. Most criminal continuances are by consent. But of course, when the accused is in custody, it's usually not desirable. Anyway, the prison/jail distinction is the same in the US as in Europe: You don't go to prison until convicted and sentenced, and can often be bailed during the pendency of appeals. The rest of what you say is just a reformulation of the arguments against the criminal bail system, which is very much under scrutiny right now in connection with current events. But we're getting somewhat afield. The OP's question was about the legal and public policy justifications for pretrial detention in spite of the Constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the question of how often pretrial detention should be applied is in the scope of OP's question. I.e. should a cooperative drunk driver facing most likely only a fine be held until a bail hearing, should a person convicted of a non-violent crime but appealing the conviction be detained, etc. Compared to Europe, US veers towards detention. While we don't disagree that there is just cause for pretrial detention in spite of the presumption of innocence (which is guaranteed in Europe too), there is still much political discourse to be had about whose approach should be applied. 93.136.3.127 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I see we're not disagreeing here. 93.136.3.127 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that upon conviction the time already spent in custody is counted as part of the sentence, which results in many people walking free from the court after sentence is pronounced. 150.143.96.88 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In German law, there are 3 reasons for being held without bail: Risk of fleeing (actually, this is separated into "has fled or hidden before" and "is likely to flee"), risk of obscuration (i.e. tampering with the evidence, influencing witnesses, killing witnesses,...), and risk of repeating the offence. I would expect similar rules to hold in most modern jurisdictions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Senator attacked[edit]

I remember a news story from around 2007-2010 about an American senator being injured in an assasination attempt/attack. I believe the senator was female (though I'm not sure, that shouldn't exclude male candidates) and I'm not sure if they survived. Does anyone have any information on who this senator might have been? Thanks for any information, Heyoostorm (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Giffords. --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giffords was a member of the House of Representatives. Her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, is currently running for a United States Senate seat in Arizona. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the fact that Giffords was a Representative and not a Senator, she is probably the person the original poster was thinking of. The phrasing of the initial question makes me think that the OP is not an American and may not be completely clear on the distinction between the two houses of the US Congress. I mean, how many people in any one country really understand the governments of most other countries? --Khajidha (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand the United States governmental system well. I believed the person was a Senator, but didn't think to include that the person could have been from the other house. Heyoostorm (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear Gabrielle Giffords was the person, thank you for the help! Heyoostorm (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]