Humanities desk
< May 3	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 5 >

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.

May 4[edit]

Condeming Condemning/Denying permission to make a movie[edit]

This is an attempt by the OP to promote his book. No answerable questions here. Move along. Go about your business. Return to your homes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackofOz (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I’m writing a book, it consist of WP articles. I’m condemning people from making a movie about it (anything that’s got to do with me really), because it’s involved with religious stuff and other stuff. – sanctions will be laid in simple terms of course; as long as they know, that’s all it matters.

What are the chances of people/individual(s) performing satanic deed(s) knowingly?

Note: They are allowed to copy the WP stuff if they are writing a book, but not the story i.e. kept separate...

Apostle (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Copyright and Derivative work. Depending on jurisdiction, if your book is sufficiently original to attract copyright protection (which a set of pasted-together Wikipedia articles may not be - see sweat-of-the-brow), it may very well qualify for protection against unauthorized works derived from it. However, for definitive advice, you will need to consult an appropriate professional. Tevildo (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the OP is difficult to understand...my sense is the post isn't appropriate for the reference desk...but it certainly has me curious...can you clarify what it is you're doing? and what it is you're asking??68.48.241.158 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make sense out of this. Note that we're not supposed to give legal advice here -- if your book ends up being considered CC-by or whatever, you don't get a refund from anybody here. The only serious question I see here is about the satanic deeds, which you would have to define better. Obviously Satanism is a thing; but sometimes Satanists are driven by a desire for good, and sometimes the truly satanic call themselves Christians, and build a fine church in which to commit their abuses. Wnt (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm confused too. The header is "Condeming to make a movie", which is about forcing people to make a movie, against their will. But in the q, it's "I’m condemning people from making a movie about it", which is not an idiom I've ever encountered, but if I had to guess, I'd say it means the exact opposite, ie. denying permission for people to make a movie, even threatening legal action if they do so. Oddest question I've seen here in many a year. Please suitly emphazi. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is saying he wishes to write a book based on things written in WP articles... And does not wish any one to make a movie based on that book. Not sure how "satanic deeds" fits into that... Perhaps making a movie is somehow satanic? Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing "satanic deeds" is a bad machine translation of something like "crimes", the crimes in this case being copyright violation. jnestorius^(talk) 10:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that must be it..an odd question made even odder by a poor translation..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1st: Thanks for the summary Tev. I'll definitely go through the formalities; no doubt about it as I never disagreed. Thank you for understanding what I meant. Kind regards.

Now others including 68.48.241.158, Wnt, Jack of Oz, Blueboar:

I didn't seek a legal advice, I should've have wrote "list of possible ways of denying permission", than I could've spoken less about it and only received the references...sorry about my English, and the ways of explaining, yet again...

Yes, you lot are right (in a way) with the word “threat” – Whoever disturbs and distorts my life, I will destroy their afterlife. I will hold my grudge(s) against the people who disturb and distort my life. I will complain to God in the afterlife By the way, I don’t threat, I state. And my statements are clear as water; it’s up to you, if you want to turn it into fire

You cannot fix a broken glass. – A guided one can stop itself from writing a destiny (as past) (can stop itself from doing something), whereas an unguided one will continue to write its destiny (as past), until one day a choice it would have to make, with which it will still fail if it is bad; be it in life, if not, and or as well as in the afterlife (depends completely on the deed(s)).

Yes there are good people, bad people who turn[ed] good, and the bad and the evil people – God knows about them (not me) as he manages and maintains them all. Note: God is not the same for everyone, same goes for the life you live. However, Satan and satanic activities/bad and or evil deeds is for everyone! Therefore, I'm still going to hold my grudge(s) upon thee for afterlife purposes It’s the best I can do

Now, I never worry of the “bad” and the “evil” people, as they always get justified by the Devil in the afterlife. - according to WP article(s) understandings...

I worry for the “good” people and the “bad” people who turn[ed] “good”, because everything depends on their understandings/logic/consciousness, e.g., when they realised… These are the people who are justified by God. - according to WP article(s) understandings...

Of course, I'm not God, the merciful and the forgiver of all, the all-knower and the Justifier of all life and afterlife, living to non-living things, so its between you, me and God. And, if Satan justifies you, than Note: At least a choice is there for the people I repeat, you disturb and distort my life, I'll destroy your afterlife with my grudges

Now again, I wish/want to be responsible for what I do. At the end of the day, its my life-time and I'll have to answer for the life I lived, to God. If I get enough money (which could/would be never), I'll make a movie myself and or with my own team (which could/would be never too). The main reason for this is, when a person does something with/without your permission, for you, on behalf of you (and so on), they sometimes create/make unnecessary problems knowingly, unknowingly, intentionally, unintentionally, overtly, covertly, with/without your knowledge (and so on), because they think its right - what goes against your judgement.

Yes I know, you need people like this in the world because of the word "trust" factor, regardless of whether it is your boss or employee, family, friends, associates and so on – we all associate with each other based on trust, and trusting others benefits (which is always/mostly the case). And bla bla bla bla bla...

But, in my case in my life (i.e. is not yours) I've entrusted people my whole life and they've always back-stabbed me one way or the other; 100% of the time So I trust only God

Also, Satanism might have derived from Christianity, but performing a satanic/bad/evil deed(s) doesn't require a religion, e.g., t_r_o_i_t's of the Muslim world.

Yes, I manipulated you guys so that you guys love me and buy my book; sorry. The book is rubbish so I thought the sock puppetry role is a cunny way My main target were the ladies, cause 70% of the world is filled with women. I wanted them to drool over my fictional character just like they all drool over for Superman. But all the gents are more interested over my fictional character, which is about 30%.

Let me know if you guys want to buy my book! Message me

Apostle (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the remaining Republican Party presidential primaries still held if a nominee already has the required number of delegates?[edit]

Let's say that right now -- today -- Donald Trump had already secured the 1,237 delegates needed to be the Republican nominee. Do the remaining states still hold their primaries? And, if so, why would they bother? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they would, in case Trump withdraws, dies, etc., before the convention. StuRat (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The primaries are about a lot more than just the presidency. There are also House and Senate races, and local races as well. For example, in Indiana today, a Republican establishment candidate defeated a Republican tea party candidate for the Senate.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that all makes sense. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "Republican tea party"? Is it something to do with the Boston Tea Party"? 92.23.52.169 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs said "a Republican tea party candidate". See Tea Party movement. There are also primaries if a sitting president is nearly unopposed like Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 and Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it refers to the Boston Tea Party, although there is no analogous "taxation without representation." Another way I could have said it was "tea party candidate running in the Republican primary", although that's a bit redundant, as they pretty much always run as Republicans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primaries are for alot more than even electing a presidential candidate. One of the purposes not mentioned yet is that the primaries have a main purpose of electing delegates to the party conventions to be held in July, the 2016 Republican National Convention and the 2016 Democratic National Convention. At the conventions, they do a LOT more than simply pick a presidential candidate; the conventions also establish Party platforms and legislative goals, party rules, elect party leaders, and a whole slew of other important business. The delegates selected through the primary process are vital even if the presidential candidate is already a forgone conclusion. --Jayron 32 12:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Dimond[edit]

Can someone help me find sources about William Henry Dimond's (1838–1896; could be spelled W. H. Dimond, William H. Dimond, etc) service in the American Civil War. He became a Major-General in later life. There is three William H. Dimond [2] and there is still no direct source that I can find about the service of this specific person in the Civil War. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lengthy newspaper biography here – Dimond was in Hawaii when the war began and offered to bring president Lincoln 100 soldiers – this was turned down for political reasons so he came alone and was made a captain under Major-General Rufus Saxton at Beaufort, South Carolina. He resigned from the army after the war and returned to Honolulu.

Another newspaper biography is reproduced here (I couldn’t find the original), which adds that Lincoln appointed him assistant adjutant-general of United States volunteers as well as captain.

And finally, a footnote in Mark Twain's Notebooks & Journals, Volume I: (1855-1873) says he was a lieutenant in the Hawaiian Cavalry Company when he went to the US (“left the Sandwich Islands on 28 August 1864 to volunteer for service with the Union forces”) and that his captaincy in the U.S. was in the cavalry. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what state and regiment would that make him?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Exemptions from Conscription[edit]

In Mulan (pretty much all versions of the story, including the Disney version), the main character's father was conscripted into the army in spite of his physical condition at the time, which, as we all know, led to a rather unorthodox result. I figured that in most modern societies with conscription, this man's physical condition would almost certainly have been more than enough grounds to exempt him from conscription. Thus, was it true that in some ancient societies, physical/mental impairments were not considered sufficient grounds to avoid conscription? 96.246.144.195 (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with such exemptions is that people would try to fake them to get out of serving. And, back then, they wouldn't have much in the way of diagnostic methods to tell who was lying. So, unless it was something obvious, like a missing leg, they would just have to take the person's word for it. Some rulers might have decided it was worth taking in a few unfortunates to prevent anyone from getting out of service. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the standards for conscripts tend to go down the more desperate for manpower the military is. In both WWI and WWII, the losing sides wound up conscripting increasingly unfit soldiers as they grew closer to defeat. For instance, the Nazis set up the Volkssturm in late 1944 and started filling it with barely-trained teenagers and middle-aged or older men. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is always a need for Cannon_fodder. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In some societies/cultures who operated Conscription, someone conscripted was allowed to send a substitute (who might be paid by the original conscriptee): the conscriptors were happy so long as they achieved their due quota. See also, more relevantly, the first paragraph under 'Medieval levies' in that linked article, where a family had to provide one conscript, but it didn't matter which individual went: this situation fits the case of Mulan (except for her concealed gender), and versions of the legend say that it applied in her particular (assumed) historical context. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These pages have recorded the names of "highly patriotic" rich powerful and famous Americans who got out of the Vietnam draft as a result of some mysterious medical condition written up by their doctor which never imposed any apparent limitations on their activities previously or subsequently. Edison (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Selective Service System#Classifications for the US, specifically the designation 4F. Loraof (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A medieval topic related to this may be Scutage, which was a fee a holder of a Military tenure that allowed the payee to avoid military service. --Jayron 32 16:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Hua Mulan for the original plot of the story first written down in the 6th century AD; "...one male from each family is called to serve in the army to defend China from invaders. Her father is old and weak and her younger brother is just a child, so she decides to take his place and bids farewell to her parents". Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription (linked above) mentions hiring substitutes in the Babylonian empire and a per-family requirement (similar to the system in Hua Mulan) in medieval [somewhere, probably Europe]. It doesn’t discuss any physical qualifications other than age. Another relevant article is Corvée; the French section refers to an able-bodied requirement, and there is a similar reference in Impressment. 184.147.128.57 (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mexico willing to exhange land for Baja California?[edit]

Today it is very difficult to buy a country or part of a country. Does anyone know if Mexico willing to exhange an entire small amazonian country (eg. Suriname) for the entire north Baja California or Baja California Sur? 173.34.246.242 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely can't make any sense of your question. They're sovereign states and nations, they're not really owned "commodities" that someone can trade, not even the government. Vespine (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Territory does get exchanged from time to time - see Category:Treaties involving territorial changes - but nothing on this scale in a long time. Why would Mexico want a non-contiguous plot of land, especially considering the great cost of relocating whoever is living on the land it would have to cede, with all the costly economic and social disruption? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a game show let me win my pick of Suriname or Baja but the offer's good for 3 seconds only I think I'd pick Baja. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) As Vespine has said, your question doesn't make much sense without context. Clarityfiend has already raised the issue of why would Mexico want Suriname. There's also the question of Suriname would want to exchange with Baja California or Baja California Sur. Even if there as advantages to these lands, moving your entire country somewhere else is fairly extreme. If there's a specific reason for it, for example, some North Korean pilots got lost on their way to nuke "Siri mum" and nuked Suriname instead, there's even less reason why Mexico is going to want it. If the US managed to acquire Suriname somehow, they may like to exchange Suriname for Baja California. But again it seems Mexico's motivation is going to be fairly low since besides the factors Clarityfiend mentioned, there's the obvious question of how difficult it will be to keep Suriname depending on how the US acquired it. (This applies to some degree even if it's just the Suriname government. Sure the government may have, but what about the people? Even if there was a referendum and over 75% of people agreed, that's still up to 25% of people plus whoever didn't vote to worry about. And some people may change their minds when it starts to happen anyway.) OTOH, if it's clearly a case of the US indicating "we're taking Baja California whether you like it or not, but you can have Suriname and not get destroyed if you cooperate", perhaps Mexico will have little choice. In other words, without a specific scenario it's impossible to even try answer although the answer is generally going to be fairly unlikely. Note that this is really an RD question even if you had a specific scenario Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question doesn't mention the USA at all. (But then the question is poorly phrased and unclear.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, that's why I first raised the question of why Suriname as it is now would want to relocate to Baja California. Really the most likely scenarios seem to be where Suriname has largely been destroyed so I mentioned the North Korea nuke scenario (admitedly it would take more nukes than North Korea has, and it seems unlikely that many will even make it); or if some other power has somehow already "acquired" Suriname but would prefer something else. For the later case, given the location and current balance of power, the only power that could realisticly be is the US. The US are also perhaps going to be the most interested in acquiring Baja California. This still doesn't settle the unlikelihood of Mexico being interested in such an exchange. And these scenarios are so implausible anyway I guess you could say the OP coming up with an even more implausibe scenario of why there would be interest in such an exchange doesn't mean much. As much as anything, I was trying to explain why the precise scenario matters a lot in deciding whether something is likely. Probably I'm trying to hard to make sense of the OP's weird question but I decided to give the benefit of the doubt they weren't trolling even if their question doesn't seem to be suitable for the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is unanswerable by the rules of this forum, which is to provide references. If you have a question about an actual event which is supposed to happen or proposed to happen, please provide us with a link to it; perhaps we can then find more information for you. However, simply speculating on random ideas is not what we do here. --Jayron 32 12:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Land/population swaps have been posited humorously at least in the early20th century. Will Rogers,said ""I've got a plan that'll stop all wars. When you can't agree with your neighbor you move away. Now that's my plan. Move nations away from each other. Take France and Germany. They can't agree, so take France and trade places with Japan. Let Japan live there by Germany. If those two want to fight, let 'em fight. Who cares. We'd run excursions to a war like that. We don't always agree with Mexico. Well, trade Mexico off for Turkey, harems and all. Now we got men in this country that would get along great with Turkey. And that would solve the Irish problem. Take England and move 'em away from Ireland. Take 'em over to Canada and let 'em live off their son-in-law. When you move England away from Ireland don't you let Ireland know where you're taking 'em, or they'll follow 'em and get 'em." [3] It would be no more strange than transporting the Arcadians from Canada to Louisiana to become Cajuns or other geopolitical/religious population mass transports of the late 20th and early 21st century, wherein masses of people born in Eastern Europe move to a tiny area in the Southern Levant or millions of people born in North Africa migrate to Northern Europe. Edison (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A number of small states have been sold by their monarchs; in an early example, Shetland and Orkney were transferred from Denmark to Scotland in pawn or as dowry (I forget which, maybe they were pawned to pay for a dowry?). Less plausible nowadays when the myth of the nation-state's natural unity is so entrenched. —Tamfang (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The recent handover of islands from Egypt to Saudi Arabia shows that it is very much still possible to trade territories between states. There have also been recent exchanges of territories (with populations) to remove the issue of enclaves and exclaves along the India-Bangladesh border. But as far as the OP question, there really isn't any answer. What would the Surinamese get in return for giving up their sovereignty? What would become of the large Mexican population of Baja California? What would be the status of Baja California after such a transfer? (a US state? A free state like Puerto Rico? Amalgated to US California? An independent country?) And why on earth would the Mexican government accept such a lousy deal, to give up a key part of its own territory for a geographically disconnected area? Afaik Mexico would have no particular interest in positioning itself militarily towards Brazil, for example. --Soman (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battleships which never saw combat[edit]

In the 20th century the cost of armaments, especially battleships was a concern to some. Each major power spent a lot of money in an arms race to build battleships which were faster, with bigger guns and heavier armor. HMS Dreadnought (1906) made obsolete earlier battleships, but apparently never fired a gun in anger as was not fired on (it did once ram and sink an enemy sub, but that was hardly the reason it was built). Is there a list somewhere of 19th and 20th century battleships (including Pre-dreadnought battleships but not destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers or earlier sailing "battleships,") which got completed, launched and commissioned but never saw combat? I.E., they were built at extremely high cost as state of the art weapons systems to enhance the prestige of their country, to project power all over the world and to defend the homeland. They may have sailed around showing the flag, and intimidating other countries, but became obsolete and were relegated to secondary roles, or just happened to have been launched during a protracted time of peace for the owner, or suffered a mishap, or were done in by the 1920's arms limitation treaty, then were broken up for scrap or intentionally sunk by the owning country or by their conquerer, or were scuttled to avoid surrender. Edison (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see South American dreadnought race for a good example. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the United States Navy battleships, early 1900's Kearsarge and Illinois classes (BB5 -BB9) saw no combat as far as I remember. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your commeng about "hardly the reason it was built", you may want to consider most of the US WW2 battleship fleet. Virtually all were engaged in anti-aircraft combat and shore bombardment, but comparatively few used their main batteries to engage enemy warships -- ostensibly the primary reason they were built, and the role that best set them apart from something like an anti-aircraft cruiser. US battleships that did see surface combat in WW2 include the Iowa, New Jersey, South Dakota, Washington, and the six battleships at Surigao Strait. The WW1-era battleships don't appear to have been generally engaged either (several participated in the late-war blockade of the German fleet, but the major engagements were already past), and so there may be further candidates there. — Lomn 22:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See fleet in being for some justification of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Vanguard (the Royal Navy's last battleship and the last battleship ever to be launched anywhere) never saw combat, but after completing in 1946, cruised around Britain's declining empire. She ended up moored in Portsmouth harbour as an exclusive dinner venue for senior dignitaries including the Queen, before being scrapped in 1960. It was about as useful as a Trident submarine. Alansplodge (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper though, especially when the guns are already available. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Vanguard's guns and turrets came from the First World War Courageous-class battlecruisers, giving rise to the epithet "A young lady with her grandmother's teeth". Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Seeing combat" could be rather vague. Would it include:

1) Was used in a combat zone, but never in combat itself.

2) Was used to further war aims, but not in combat itself, like used to transport troops.

3) Took place in a coastal bombardment, but was never fired upon.

4) Sank enemy merchant ships, but was never fired upon.

Also note that being able to intimidate your potential enemies into avoiding war in the first place is the ultimate success of military equipment. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Anson falls into the first of Stu's categories above; despite entering service in 1942 and operating as an escort to Arctic convoys and various actions by aircraft carriers, she seems never to have fired her guns in anger. Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Anson had fired AA, but not the main battery? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right. I couldn't find a reliable source that confirms or denies this; if anybody can track one down, it could go in our article which is silent on the issue. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz' last week or so[edit]

I'll admit I haven't been paying close attention to Ted Cruz, so I apologize if I'm missing something obvious. But why would he choose a running mate and then just 6 days later pull out of the race? Was choosing a VP candidate a Hail Mary pass of sorts for the Indiana primary? Dismas|^(talk) 20:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes [4] [5] [6] [7]. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 23:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved