Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

July 10

summarizing Shakespeare (SPOILER WARNING!)

we came up with what I thought was a fair summary of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, at least the basic storyline or theme/arc, it's:

• Two feuding families' children elope, but die

Could you please provide a summary in 7 words (per play) of each of the rest of Shakespeare's plays? You could start with just the major ones, I realize he did write quite a few, and you might not have read all of them. Thank you. 188.28.160.57 (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

McBeth murders his king and is killed. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hamlet dies [after] avenging his father's murder. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Petruchio marries a shrew virago and domesticates her. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Othello murders his wife out of jealousy.

Lear splits his kingdom and regrets it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Trading kingdom for flattery, Lear regrets it. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Insecure king cocks up daughters' inheritance – fool. Ericoides (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bassanio avoids repaying a loan to Shylock. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall and the Pound of Flesh. Tevildo (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Two fairies toy with mortals. Mishaps ensue. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard climbs onto throne, falls off horse. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Good one. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Henry scores an upset fighting the French. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Caesar, ignoring warnings, is assassinated and avenged. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Be interested to see if someone can summarise Twelfth Night in 7 words--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cross-dressing confusion, madness, mayhem, and marriage? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cross-dressing castaway lands duke. Brother weds castoff. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Good newspaper headline. Edison (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware "Shakespeare" wrote any plays about newspapers. The things you learn here ...  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Prince Hal misbehaves but then redeems himself. Looie496 (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Henry moves on France; wins at Agincourt. Neutrality^talk 05:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There were two gentlemen of Verona, who ... (sorry, reached my limit) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Fickle lover betrays friend. All ends well. Love triumphs anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleopatra beguiles Antony, loses battle, both die. Mikenorton (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Island magician causes storm, shipwreck and reconciliation. Mikenorton (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Revenge, murder, rape, mutilation and involuntary cannibalism. Mikenorton (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Which plays were the last two? 2.101.12.198 (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Tempest and Titus Andronicus. Tevildo (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Roman channels Hannibal Lecter, without fava beans. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard isn't good at being king, assassinated. Tevildo (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Benedick is unfairly tricked into marrying Beatrice. Tevildo (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Lots of annoying people hang around in a forest making jokes that weren't particularly funny in 1623. No, that's more than seven... Tevildo (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Puck off. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the Countercheck Quarrelsome to me! Tevildo (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

False accusations and child abandonment (with bear!). Tevildo (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

False friend incites jealous husband to Moor-der. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

88888

Prithee, what means this "88888"? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

An old SDMB convention. See peanut gallery. Tevildo (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol backwards, in Ancient Greece. Tevildo (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dithering Danish prince avenges his father's murder. Or, Dithering Dane debates, defeats dead dad's deposers.

Witches' foretellings mislead doomed Scot into regicide. Thanefully, he gets his just reward.

Jew loses loan and daughter to Christian. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Alas, poor Yoric, he'd known him well. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hamlet tries to figure out what to do HominidMachinae (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Two Thomas Davidsons

Hiya, excuse me if this is too specialized for the ref. desk, but I created a page on the German Wikipedia for the English genre painter Thomas Davidson, about whom next to nothing is known except that he was active in London ca. 1863-1903. Now I stumbled upon another painter called Thomas Davidson, about whom next to nothing is known except that he lived in Glasgow, 1863-1903....now I wonder if these three paintings are the work of one or two Thomas Davidsons, 1863-1903 (especially since one of them was exhibited at Dundee in 1877, which is closer to Glasgow than to London, but then again the Scottish Davidson would have painted this picture at age 15...); maybe someone can help...--Janneman (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence that these are different people? 173.228.88.206 (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the National Maritime Museum, the Thomas Davidson who painted genre pictures and the life of Nelson was born 1842, died 1919 - rather than died 1903. Of course, it's quite possible that, if there were two different Davidsons, the other sources from which you have gleaned information became equally confused. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

ah, thanks, I didn't find that page. --Janneman (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Both the 1891 and 1901 census show him living at Hampstead with with his wife Charlotte and family, they also show he was born in London circa 1842 and he was deaf and dumb. By 1911 they had moved to Suffolk. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in the novel Hide and Seek (1854) by Wilkie Collins, which features a "deaf and dumb" girl growing up in an artist's studio in London. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Animal rights' view of predation

Animal rights activists believe animals should have right to life, and as such they oppose killing of animals, and promote veganism. But what is their view on natural predators? For them it is unethical for a human to kill a deer for food, but what is their view when, say for example, a tiger kills a deer? So it is ok for a Panthera tigris to kill a deer and there is no violation of the deer's rights, but it is unethical for a Homo sapiens to kill a deer and it will be violation of animal rights? --Owlzz (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That last sentence would be fine without the question mark at the end. I don't see a problem. Humans, particularly in advanced countries, have a rational choice, with plenty of other food options. Animal predators of deer don't have such a rational choice. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, take it for example, for any reason, there is no deer left in a jungle and the carnivorous animals have no rational choice but to hunt for human babies. The logic that justifies a tiger's killing of deer will also justify this. Right? --Owlzz (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The animal's hunting instinct is not a rational choice. It's an inherent drive, driven by hunger in the extreme hypothetical you present. I imagine they would hunt humans if there was no other choice. It's neither right nor wrong. It just is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends a great deal on which approach to animal rights you are going by. Tom Regan, for example, distinguishes between moral agents and moral patients. An animal can be a moral patient (that is, have inherent moral value which we recognise though rights) due to satisfying his "subject of a life" criterion, but may not be a "moral agent", as it would be incapable of acting morally. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Since human beings are moral agents, it is up for them to identify what is moral and what is immoral, and act accordingly. If a tiger attack a family member of person X, what should be the position of X? 1. Will they say the tiger's attack on my relative is neither wrong nor right, 2. or is it X's moral duty to protect the family member and to kill the tiger for this purpose? So this logic can be applied to the case where a tiger kills a deer, and human beings as moral agents have moral duty to save the deer and arrange for some different food for the tiger? Ok, here animal rights activists will say since meat is tiger's natural food out, it is impossible to arrange for other food. But apply this logic in the case of omnivorous animals (we humans are of course omnivores so we have a choice between plant and animal diet). What about, when omnivores kill other animals? For examples bears are omnivores and can survive on plant diet. So if it is moral duty of a vegan human (a moral agent) to stop a non-vegan human from killing an animal, is not it a moral duty of a vegan human (the same moral agent) to stop a bear from killing an animal and to arrange plant diet for the bear? Is not the argument of animal rights activists that human beings being moral agent have a duty to protect animals becomes very weak after scrutinizing the argument involving omnivore bears? --Owlzz (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. Hold on bit. How about one question at a time? HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep things as simple as possible: Non-humans do what they do. There is no "morality" about it. "Morality" and "ethics" are human concepts that apply only to human behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell that to the perpetrators of this shocking crime. The poor creature was hanged by the neck until she was dead, merely for acting in a natural and instinctive way. That's a barbaric treatment even for humans, but at least it's confined to humans. Or so I thought.-- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Owlzz: You are correct—for those holding the view that animals have an absolute right not to be killed, that standpoint could be taken to imply that we should prevent predators from killing prey. But I doubt that many people concerned about human behaviour towards animals believe in such an inalienable right to life for every creature. Take Peter Singer, for example, one of the most influential philosophers in the "animal rights" debate. He is of the utilitarian bent, and has little regard for the concept of "rights", whether for humans or non-humans. To him, the killing of an animal is not repulsive as such, what is repulsive is the amount of suffering they're subjected to before that killing happens. In his view, our ethical mandate to reduce suffering compels us to stop eating products from factory-farmed animals (or to save young children from being maimed by man-eating tigers), but it doesn't compel us to police the wilderness. Gabbe (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why—do non-factory-farmed animals not experience pain? More likely the argument is that we should stop eating all animals. Some of us do, after all, do eat non-factory-farmed animals. Bus stop (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the OP's philosophy, we should outlaw lethal strains of bacteria. Good luck with that! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop: Singer's position isn't "we must stop all forms of killing of animals", it's "we must stop subjecting animals to great suffering for meagre benefits". He seems much more accepting of people hunting for food than he is with people eating hamburgers. After all, being shot by a skilled marksman and killed instantaneously might be preferable to being devoured alive by a ravenous bear. And both are preferable to spending your life in a gestation crate, for that matter. Gabbe (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabbe—but obviously people aren't going to go hunting for food in an urban metropolis. And not all marksmen are skilled, and animals tend not to stand still—even for skilled marksmen. In vitro meat may solve some of our ethical delusions dilemmas. I'm not saying the Gestation crate and other ugly practices are not terrible and should be rectified. But that would be a focussed change needed, rather than a blurry moral/ethical issue in a realm not normally involving morality/ethics. My personal opinion is that it is perfectly normal for people to kill animals for meat—but animals should be treated with respect because we know that they have parallel feelings to those experienced by humans. But anyone's mileage may vary. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: I'm not saying I disagree with you, or that I'm agreeing with Singer. All I'm saying is that this is Singer's answer to the moral conundrum posed by the OP ("if we shouldn't eat animals, why should we allow other animals to do so?"). The question, after all, is "what do animal rights activists think about natural predators?", rather than "how do the reference deskers feel about natural predators?". Gabbe (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I agree we should be answering the OP's question. You are right, I agree with you about that. But if humans—who have the capacity to exercise moral reasoning—have the right to kill animals for food, then I think other animals even more so have the right to kill animals for food. Bus stop (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any morality vs. necessity debate here? (video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That is repulsive. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And this is delicious. Boo-Hurrah morality doesn't really get us anywhere on this issue, or any other issue. Tevildo (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, note that there are some vegetarians who feed their pet dogs and cats a vegetarian diet. By doing so, they are effectively stopping a natural predator from eating other animals. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No ship named after LBJ?

Hello, there are lot United States Ships from the Marines and the army named after famous Americans, especially the preisents; for example USS-Ronald Reagan etc. Is there not a single one that is named after President Lyndon B. Johnson?? I mean, despite his failures in Vietnam he was one of the most successfull preisents in domestic policy. Jerchel (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Global Security has this list: Ships named after Presidents (although they missed some 18th and 19th century ones found on our List of U.S. military vessels named after living Americans). But no LBJ. Rmhermen (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Even US warships have been named after Brits eg USS Winston S. Churchill so it does seem strange that Johnson has been looked over. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It may have been of relevance that Winnie was in any case half-American :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}. 90.197.66.165 (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to naming ships after people, US Navy honors military heroes... In the case of Presidents, this gets stretched to include those who led the US during victorious wars, ex: FDR during World War II, Reagan during Grenada, H.W. Bush during the first Gulf War (and in the case of Churchill, to honor his leadership as an ally during WWII) It is unlikely that they would want to honor a President who led the US to a defeat. In other words, the Navy does not really care about LBJ's domestic policy... but it does care about LBJ's failure in Vietnam. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically it was Nixon that failed. Presumably there is no ship named Nixon either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a matter of much discussion. LBJ laid several of the plans Nixon continued and expanded (like Obama has escalated Bush's drone war). Rmhermen (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I almost hesitate to mention this, but our whole involvement in Vietnam actually began during the latter part of the Eisenhower Administration. --Michael K Smith^Talk 00:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

USNS Bob Hope. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As a child in the 1950s, not even in America, I somehow became very aware of a large number of performances by Bob Hope in many parts of the world to entertain the troops. I guess that was his reward. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article notes he was honoured in 1996 by the US Congress as the 'first and only honorary veteran of the U.S. armed forces' Nil Einne (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

But he was never president (the subject of this thread), nor would he have ever been eligible, being born British. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere, ol' Ski Nose is gloating that there's no USS Bing Crosby. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

New Israeli maritime border with Kypros

Geography-related question. The fine fellows at YNet were kind enough to not provide any map showing the new border between Israel and Cyprus. Where can I get a map of this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but [1] shows the previous dispute with Lebanon, and perhaps gives an idea when combined with the gas field region map at [2]. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Polygyny and polyandry

does the term Polygyny and Polyandry affect on the LGBT community? I mean polygyny could apply to a lesbian who has multiple spouses and polyandry could apply to a gay who has multiple spouses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.190 (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction with gay marriage laws which allows multiple spouses, besides perhaps South Africa. South Africa allows both Polygyny and Gay Marriage. Does it allow a combination of the two? Eliyohub (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is about definitions not legalities. The answer is yes by extension where Same-sex marriage is legal or socially endorsed. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in South Africa#Marriage laws in South Africa says there are or were 3 laws governing marriages. Someone can only be married under one of the laws at a time. I'm pretty sure only the Customary Marriages Act allows polygynous marriages [3] Nil Einne (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You will usually find the more umbrella terms polyamory or non-monogamy used in LGBT contexts. Polygyny and Polyandry really only make sense within strictly heterosexual relationships and even then they are not exhaustive. What is a man with two wives who each have another husband? Polygyny and Polyandry are useful terms because they have appeared in a number of differnt cultures and the animal kingdom. Also they imply a "central" partner which isn't exactly descriptive of many modern (particularly LGBT) non-monogomous relationships. Jabberwalkee (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Leadership incompatible with Marxism?

I've got an old paperback (Left Luggage From Marx To Wilson, by C. Northcote Parkinson, a serious anti-left discussion) that starts off "The greatness of any human society depends upon leadership". Someone has underlined this and written a marginal note in tiny faded handwriting: "Given this premise this book cannot be taken as a critique of anything vaguely Marxist".

Was the marginal note writer correct? Although the USSR had leaders, I was once told by a Russian I think, that they had not yet reached true communism and were only socialist. Or perhaps the note-writer meant something else. 2.101.12.198 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

George Orwell portrayed corrupt leadership as the flaw in Stalinist revolution. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the marginal note writer was confusing Marxism with Marxism-Leninism or perhaps Stalinism. In theory, Marx's ultimate communist society has no "state" and thus no centralized leadership. Lenin's version of Marxism emphasized that in order for this state to be achieved, there must be a strong vanguard party dedicated to revolutionary ideals, which implies temporary centralized leadership (not necessarily invested in a single person, although that is how it eventually turned out). The Soviet Union never moved past that intermediate stage. There might also be confusion regarding the term dictatorship of the proletariat, which means "the proletariat does the dictating" rather than "the proletariat is dictated to." Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this question touches on why true communism is impossible for any large group. Because we have seen true communism work, more or less, on the small scale in communes and kibbutzim, but never for anything larger. A command economy requires someone in command, someone making economic planning decisions. It is human nature that without anyone in command of a command economy everyone would do what's best for them in the short term with no thought to others or to long-term strategic planning. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This has certainly been an important debate over the years. But do you have any evidence that economic planning is impossible without some one (individual?) making decisions? Why could these decisions not be arrived at democratically, or (to some extent) through self-organisation? If it were human nature that everyone tends to do "what's best for them in the short term with no thought to others or to long-term strategic planning", then rational choice theory would tell us everything we need to know about the world. Warofdreams talk 11:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think planning is impossible. But communism seems to demand a centralized command economy if it is to ensure there is enough of each good for everyone. In a capitalist economy you can produce as many goods as you think you can sell, if you've overproduced prices go down and you'll cut supply to match demand, if you can't physically supply enough another supplier can come in and take a share of the market. By moving goods to new markets eventually it will reach saturation if enough raw material is available, because smart businesses will increase production until they meet demand. BUT in a communist system there is no oversupply price crash to indicate you have oversaturated, and so it is much harder to gauge how much you need to make and where. A communist economy almost certainly demands a central authority to dictate goals and production levels HominidMachinae (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear what "leadership" as defined by Parkinson looks like. It's also unclear what true communism as defined by Marx would have looked like (his descriptions are extremely abstract and philosophical). Consequently, it's doubly unclear whether the two are compatible. However, it seems reasonable that even in Marx' communism, you would still have leaders in the broadest sense - formally, people to whom the community entrusts tasks involving coordinating the actions of others and making decisions to be carried out by others, and informally, people who are unusually influential in the collective decision-making processes. One may object that the former would actually mean that there is something like a state, whereas there should be no state in communism; but the Marxist retort would be, I think, that a state is defined by Marxism as a tool of class warfare and that consequently no institutions existing in a classless society can be considered to constitute a state.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that Marxism is based on the delusion of historical or economic determinism, of course it can always complain that its intents are anti-authoritarian. The facts, however--list of Marxist dictatorships--are different. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on economic determinism goes into some detail on the objections from Marxists in identifying it with Marxism. A list of dictatorships which have called themselves Marxist is not very useful evidence - does a list of capitalist dictatorships prove that capitalism and democracy are incompatible? Warofdreams talk 11:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to that list? μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Charismatic authority covers the Weberian concept of a charismatic leader. Later thinkers have suggested that in the case of communism, it is the party, rather than the individual, that is supposed to represent the charismatic leader.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading the first few pages of the paperback (interesting as far as its interesting to read the well-written thoughts of a retro-High-Tory who thinks Britain has been in decline since 1910, when perfection was having the squirearcy in place in a rose-tinted view of the countryside like that on a Christmas card or in Memoirs Of A Fox Hunting Man) I'm sure the author would say that lack of leadership is the major fault of Marxism. Its easy to guess that the authors emphasis on leadership is a hang-over from his experiences of the militarism of WW2. Unfortunately I have come across at least one public organisation run like a Führerprinzip. Fortunately current best practice is to get staff to internalise professionalism, codes of conduct, and mission statements etc. etc. and expect them to act on their own initiative rather than sitting around waiting for orders from their leader. 92.28.244.254 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

How are all relevant documents found for disclosure?

So the concept of 'Disclosure' in the legal world is the time in a case where both sides can ask the other for any relevant document and all such documents must be provided. How can either side even know which documents are relevant and exist. E-mails for example: thousands of e-mails are sent every day within large companies. If a few of them hint at some evil scheme how could anyone but the guilty know where to look? 91.85.128.50 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure is generally not allowed to be used as a "fishing exercise". You need to be specific about what you want, and why. But yes, this issue can arise. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliyohub (talk • contribs) 15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a very common practice for a party subject to disclosure to dump massive quantities of documents (often on paper) on their opponent, in as inconvenient a format as they can get away with. Most of the heavy lifting is done by associates and paralegals, who have to comb through the massive amounts of paper yielded by the process. Law firms are consequently big users of document management systems, but a basic textual analysis is a very shallow view of the discussions that take place; in the future technologies that aim to acquire a deeper "understanding" of a text, such as those used in IBM's Watson system, may streamline this process. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that the legal practices use very crude methods to sift the documents, e.g. using the "find" command in MS Word? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Some document management systems have a search engine function that's a bit better; that (like Google) does stemming and maybe can handle common synonyms. But yeah, it's of only marginal use. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

An important thing a DMS can do in this case is twofold: identifying when two documents are the same, and identifying differences between documents. Say WidgetCo is being sued about delays in the development of some widget; they might respond to disclosure with entire copies of the whole development team's entire folders. People are packrats, so you end up with n copies of documents in various places (with different file names) and more copies that people printed out. A decent forensic DMS can identify which copies are the same, so you know a) who got what document and when, and b) so the associates don't need to read n copies of the same document. Equally identifying differences is instructive - if you want to know when a given widget developer changed the specification document he was writing to reflect confidential information that he wasn't supposed to know about, a forensic DMS can (maybe) give you Wikipedia-like diffs - but still, like Wikipedia, most diffs are trivial, and formatting and stylistic tweaks can have disproportionately impressive looking diffs. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that usually by the time it comes for disclosure, you already have a subject you can specify. For example, in a contract dispute, a disclosure request might ask for "any and all emails dated between April 12, 2004 and January 7th 2010 which refer to Litigant Corp." Or if it's a product safety lawsuit "all safety testing reports of Happy Fun Ball, and all emails, memos and letters from or to regulatory compliance officers which reference Happy Fun Ball". You're not going to get to the disclosure stage with "I don't know what it's about, but I think they might have an evil scheme lurking somewhere." - you'll likely have something more specific to start with. I also believe you can submit additional requests later, if your investigation indicates they are relevant. For example, if you find indication in the disclosed documents that there may be some safety testing regarding the flubber component that might not have been Happy Fun Ball specific (and thus not covered by the original disclosure request), you can submit an amended/new discovery request asking for documents regarding the safety of flubber. -- 174.31.204.164 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that part of the justification of disclosure is that neither side in a case is allowed to spring "surprise evidence" during the trial. The idea is that each side builds an explanation of what the evidence means, but that explanation isn't dependant on some evidence the other side had zero access to. When new evidence does arise, and one or the other side has had no chance to review it, they may ask for and receive a continuance, or even a mistrial should it be determined that, say, one side deliberately withheld evidence. A prosecutor can even lose his job over these sorts of issues (see Duke lacrosse case and Mike Nifong). --Jayron32 22:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Also see Brady v. Maryland. --Jayron32 22:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Butterfly effect and human lives

If even the most ridiculous small event can have an unpredictable huge effect (good or bad) in a chaotic system (like a human life), how should we held people responsible for their acts? If I fire off a cigarette on a child's head that could even be good on the long run. What makes it despicable? Wikiweek (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See mens rea. Usually intent to commit a crime is a key factor in convictions. You can also be found culpable if you exhibited recklessness or criminal negligence (you might not have intended to cause harm, but you didn't take steps that a reasonable person would have likely taken to avoid harm). The judicial system deals only with your specific acts, and those things that you have control of. If a "reasonable person" couldn't have foreseen the bad/good outcome of an action, then that chaotic downstream effect ideally shouldn't have any bearing on your legal culpability. -- 174.31.204.164 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Chaotic events are inherently unpredictable, so even if the chain of causation is clear in retrospect, if there was no way a reasonable person could have avoided it, it isn't even negligence. Maybe a good example for what you are looking for is Typhoid Mary who was initially unaware that she was making people sick, and later, after conflicting evidence, in deep denial about it. 99.24.223.58 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Chaos theory is usually the last refuge of nihilists looking to deny that there is such a thing as causation at all. But in a moral and a legal sense there are likely outcomes, unlikely outcomes and freaking almost impossible outcomes. You are liable for things that you could have forseen, even if they are not immediate. If you push a boulder off a hill with a house at the bottom, even if it takes some time for the rock to roll down the hill and demolish the house, you are still responsible. On the other hand if you walk up a hill and as a result a seed is able to take root in your footstep which grows roots that dislodge a boulder some years later that demolish a house, no reasonable person could have ever forseen that. Ultimately the difference between an "act of god" and a consequence of an action is the directness of the result and its proximity to the cause. In the famous "for want of a nail the shoe was lost..." example is a good one. You wouldn't charge the neglegent shoemaker with treason for losing the war and ultimately the kingdom, but if he shot the general in the back of the head you certainly would! HominidMachinae (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That actually is a rather tricky example, in UK law, at least. (Please tell me we have articles on Hadley v Baxendale and The Wagon Mound - we do. *relaxes*). Basically, the _extent_ of the damage isn't a consideration in negligence, only that the _type_ of damage is reasonably forseeable, and the tortfeasor (the farrier in this case) owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. If it came to court, the duty of care of the farrier to the messenger (and, by implication, the Signal Corps) would be easy to establish, but his counsel might raise the inadequacy of the C3I system that allowed a major action to depend on one, non-redundant, message. See Tort and English tort law. Tevildo (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In the US, see proximate cause: "an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury." There are multiple ways in which this is argued in court. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., a classic case, pretty much says, in not so many words, that you are not liable for butterfly effect sorts of things. (The summary of facts of that case are alone is worth knowing — it's first year law school stuff, the sort of crazy-ass case that makes you go, "dang, life is weird, and law is hard.") --Mr.98 (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A few different legal principles have been a bit mashed together in the answers here. In both criminal and tort cases the law requires proof of causation (law) before a person can be held liable. The test for this is slightly different between tort and criminal law (and in different jurisdictions), but the basic gist of most tests is whether the actions of the accused are the substantial (or proximate is the US term I think) cause of the damage or harm. This is the answer to your question. The law does not stop at what is sometimes called the "but for test"; that is "but for the conduct alleged, would the person have suffered the harm." It asks whether the conduct was a primary cause or substantial cause or proximate cause (depending on which judge/which country you read). On top of that the law requires some kind of fault element for a claim to succeed. In many criminal jurisdictions this is mens rea (or its statutory equivalent), in the intentional torts this is an intention to do the damaging thing and in negligence it is the failure to take care to avert damage that is reasonably foreseeable.Jabberwalkee (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I know this isn't the math desk, but the Chaos_Theory article describes the difference between mathematical chaos (the long-term unpredictability of the precise state of a deterministic system) and the term chaos as it is informally used. Unless you have a mathematically defined dynamic system and enough data to demonstrate its chaotic behavior in a given topological space using a very precise definition, you cannot claim mathematical chaos.12.186.80.1 (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)