Miscellaneous desk
< February 16	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 17[edit]

Flower identification[edit]

Hello, I would be interested in identifying a flower from a fairly well circulated photo, seen here. It is yellow, seen on the right half.

I had thought it was a buttercup, but on looking at images of buttercups in a field, they are far more dispersed than in the photo. I'm sure someone will know fairly easily, I'm just not a plant guy. Thanks in advance!

216.173.144.188 (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend on where it is in the world, but my immediate thought is oilseed rape. --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem to resemble that in terms of shape of the flower in some cases. However, the wiki article for it explains there are many species, and it DOES bare striking resemblance to these, which are in fact featured on that page.

216.173.144.188 (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it is yellow rapeseed, or oilseed rape. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the both of you. I accept this answer. Question completed. 216.173.144.188 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC, and a little more info):There are indeed many types of rape, and it's just one of the many, many Brassica species we farm. Keep in mind that all the strains or cultivars of rape are still rape, and still the same species. But the farming is the key - this is obviously an agricultural field, so that rules out buttercups and lots of things that aren't grown commercially at that scale. If the photo was taken in north america, it is likely the Canola strain. If the photo was taken in Asia, it may be a different variety. As our article points out, a huge majority (90%) of the crop in Canada (and likely a similar amount in other areas) are GMO strains, usually Roundup Ready. So if you want to know the exact strain, it will be hard to know with certainty, but for North America, the safe bet is Genuity ™ rape from the fine folks at Monsanto, available at a retailer near you [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While oilseed rape is the most likely identification, it isn't possible to see sufficient detail of the individual flowers to be absolutely certain. The other, very similar plant which might be grown as a field crop is mustard - of which there are also several commercially grown varieties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.178.47 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune 500 executives versus military generals in intelligence[edit]

Is there any good data or inferences from indirect data that would allow for a comparison between these two groups based on IQ? Muzzleflash (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all of them had taken the same IQ test (they won't have), there are significant problems with using tested IQ as measure of intelligence (Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views). The question is unanswerable. Fgf10 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation[edit]

In common law jurisdictions, when using the defence of truth again a tort of libel and/or slander, what is the burden of proof for establishing the truth of the statement? 139.193.9.104 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the defendant had the burden of proof in establishing the truth of an otherwise defamatory statement, and our article on English defamation law says this is still true under English law. In the United States, however, due to First Amendment concerns, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing falsity, as explained in this law review article. John M Baker (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, the standard of proof in English law is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". Tevildo (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two relevant concepts are the preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard of proof in civil suits under common law. In NY, five members out of a jury of six can find for the plaintiff. Another issue is defamation per se, where the claims are so vile that the plaintiff does not need to prove he was harmed by the claim to be awarded damages. Given the number of jurisdictions and the evolution of the law it is difficult to give an overview in this sort of forum. I suspect our article (I've linkified the header will provide some avenues to explore) μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if the standard is the preponderance of the evidence (or the balance of probabilities), which is as I understand it quite a low burden, then isn't it conceivable that the plaintiff proves their case beyond the preponderance of the evidence and the defendant proves the truth of the statement beyond the preponderance of the evidence? 114.121.133.254 (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "proves their case"? If the defendant proves the truth of the statement then in jurisdictions where truth of the statement that's claimed to be libel is sufficient defence (i.e. most jurisdictions), the plantiff can't ultimately have proven their case. Their case requires that the defendant has no sufficient defense. It's obviously not particularly likely that both the plantiff and defence can have proven and disproven the truth of a statement on the prepoderance of evidence, at least if the jury or judge understands what that means since a statement can't generally be more "more likely to be true than not true" and more likely to be not true than true. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is referring to the concept of an affirmative defence - "a fact... which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct". For libel in English law, the plaintiff has to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that (a) the defendant made the statement, and (b) the statement was defamatory - if he does so, he's proved his side of the case. The defendant can then go on to prove the truth of the statement, which defeats the action. In US law, the plaintiff also has to prove that the statement was false - the defendant doesn't have to actively prove that it was true. Tevildo (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old adage: "Never sue - they might prove it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I think this depends on what you mean by prove "the statement was defamatory". I would suggest even if you don't have to prove the statement was false in the general case, if truth or substantial truth is an absolute defence against defamation then you do have to counter any proof (of truth) offered by the defendant. If your fail or unable to do so (i.e. the defendant proves the allegedly defamatory statement was true), you've haven't actually proven defamation. (To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a big difference between the defendant being required to prove a statement is true, or plantiff being required to prove a statement is false. But simply that whatever the case may be, ultimately the plantiff has to not only offer sufficient evidence to fulfill their burden of proof but also counter any successful defence on the part of the defendant.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one this one point, there are various standard judicial definitions of a defamatory statement in English law - one that exposes the plaintiff to "hatred, ridicule, or contempt" (Parmiter v Coupland (1840) per Parke B) or "lowers him in the estimation of right-thinking people" (Sim v Stretch (1936) per Lord Atkin). If such a statement is true, making it does not constitute the tort of defamation, but the statement itself is still defamatory (and justified). Tevildo (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't the defence of justification been abolished for new defamatory statements? At least that's Defamation Act 2013 seems to say. For older statements covered by the pre 2013 situation, it sounds like you're right [2].

Anyway my earlier statements were worded poorly. But what I'm getting at is it seems to me if haven't proven the tort of defamation for example because you were unable to counter the claim of justification (due to truth), you haven't proven your case even if you've proven a defamatory statement was made.

It's perhaps also worth noting that truth isn't always a guaranteed defence, the situation can get complicated even in countries where it a defence. In the earlier source and also [3] [4] it's mentioned how even if the statements you publish are literally true, if the wording or confluence of statements strongly imply something which is not true despite not saying it, a defamation case against you may succeed.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the common-law defences of justification, fair comment, Reynolds privilege, and Jameel abuse of process have been replaced by various statutory equivalents, but the requirements for the defence haven't changed significantly - the 2013 act basically frees the court from having to rely on common-law precedents for justification. Of course, the changes are significant to a practicing libel lawyer. Tevildo (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preponderance of the evidence essentially means that what you assert is more likely than not. So, no, it is not possible for both the plaintiff and the defendant to prove their cases under that standard: If it is more likely than not that a statement is true, it cannot also be more likely than not that the statement is false. John M Baker (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Preponderance of the evidence essentially means "even the tiniest little bit above a 50% probability". In other words, 50.000001% or such. In law school, we call this "50 percent plus a feather". So, clearly, both sides cannot (mathematically) prove something as having a greater than 50% probability. It's numerically impossible. There is only 100% total to "assign". So, if I (the juror) can credit the plaintiff's version of events as having, say, a probability of 50.001%, then the greatest probability that I can credit to the defense's version is 49.999%. In other words, if one side is greater than 50%, then other side -- by definition -- must be lower than 50%. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, I will point out that under NY law, a jury of six needs five, not 4 jurors to find for a party in a civil suit, and although the standard was "preponderance of the evidence" the judge's instructions were not exactly "simply more than 49.99999 (repeating)" to find in favor of the plaintiff. In our case the facts were clearly in favor of the plaintiff--the defendant even presented surreptitiously filmed evidence that supported the plaintiff's claims of fact. The issue was the damages. The point is, the law depends on the jurisdiction, even down to the judge's jury instructions. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have me confused. You "need" more than 50%, correct? Why are you saying "more than 49.999999%"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]